Is God the best way to explain existence?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Well my memories are most definitely a part of my consciousness. Otherwise it would make sense to talk of non-conscious things having memories -- which is ludicrous. Of course a computer has "memories", but the word is not being used in the same sense. Here memory is referring to information as contrasted with a conscious experience of a memory.

You have no conscious experience of your memory, only of the things recalled from your memory. And you certainly aren't conscious of everything in your memory all at once, all the time. The consistency of the trees in your yard are not maintained by your consciousness while you are away on holiday.

The consistency of the external world might need no explanation. It might simply be a brute fact. Perhaps the consistency is necessary for us to come into being in this physical reality in the first place. Even disregarding this, why should the fact of its consistency need an explanation, where as if it were not consistent it would need no explanation? Arguably a deck of cards which is ordered ace, 2,3 etc by suit requires no more explanation than any other particular order.

I'm not sure why declaring something a "brute fact" means that no explanation is required. If I can declare things brute facts, I don't need to explain much of anything. It's just a brute fact that brain function is consciousness? But even so, it means there is something over and above consciousness.

But let's assume the consistency of the external world does require an explanation. What are you proposing here? Some conscious independent something which has a self-subsistent existence which is of such a nature that it gives rise to our perceptual conscious experiences? I really don't think that gets us anywhere. You're just replacing one mystery with something equally mysterious.

All I'm saying is that there is something else besides personal consciousness.

If there exists any consciousness-independent reality, then it's nature must forevermore remain wholly mysterious. All references to the external world are cashed out in terms of our conscious experiences. Even information only makes sense in the context of consciousness.

I agree it will remain mysterious. It just might not be consciousness. There shall be no claiming "everything is just consciousness."

If we hypothesis some meta-awareness underlying and sustaining reality as a whole, then at least we have some idea what we are talking about since we are conscious ourselves. We know that consciousness exists. We do not know, and can never know, whether any consciousness-independent reality exists. So proposing some sort of meta-consciousness accounting for the consistency of the external world is more metaphysically economic than some putative conscious-independent reality.

The analogy doesn't carry too far. The metamind hypothesis requires all sorts of baggage that doesn't come from an analogy to human consciousness. It has to be all-pervasive; it has to be able to differentiate into multiple personal consciousnesses; it has to be able to sustain the consistency of the universe; it has to last past death; it has to have memory, etc. You may feel as if all these attributes are just obviously something that consciousness has, but it's just a feeling on your part.

Could this meta-consciousness be self-sustaining? Well why not? Or to put it another way, what is problematic about that notion?

It's precisely as problematic as the idea that the self-sustaining stuff is something else, because personal consciousness is not self-sustaining.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You have no conscious experience of your memory, only of the things recalled from your memory. And you certainly aren't conscious of everything in your memory all at once, all the time. The consistency of the trees in your yard are not maintained by your consciousness while you are away on holiday.

I am not using memory in the same sense that you are. I am using it in the sense of a conscious recollection.

I'm not sure why declaring something a "brute fact" means that no explanation is required. If I can declare things brute facts, I don't need to explain much of anything.

The question here is whether it is possible for something to be simply a brute fact where no further explanation is relevant. If you say that everything must have an explanation --including the consistency of the external world -- then why is this? Can you demonstrate that nothing is simply a brute fact but always needs an explanation?

It's just a brute fact that brain function is consciousness? But even so, it means there is something over and above consciousness.

Unintelligible assertions cannot be brute facts.

All I'm saying is that there is something else besides personal consciousness.


I agree it will remain mysterious. It just might not be consciousness. There shall be no claiming "everything is just consciousness."

We know nothing about anything wholly independent of consciousness. It's nature is not something we could ever know. This does not equate to the denial of its existence. It might well exist. But it's more economic to suppose it doesn't. It's not needed in our metaphysical explanations of reality. If we are concerned about Ockham's principle a meta-consciousness will suffice (although I personally am not particularly concerned about his principle. Over metaphysical disputes people invariable just use his razor in such a manner that it always supports their own position. Not very helpful).

The analogy doesn't carry too far. The metamind hypothesis requires all sorts of baggage that doesn't come from an analogy to human consciousness. It has to be all-pervasive; it has to be able to differentiate into multiple personal consciousnesses; it has to be able to sustain the consistency of the universe; it has to last past death; it has to have memory, etc. You may feel as if all these attributes are just obviously something that consciousness has, but it's just a feeling on your part.

I really don't think we're getting very far with this. I merely mention that a meta-consciousness associated with reality as a whole is something that at least we have a vague inkling of unlike some consciousness-independent reality. Saying there's a problem with this meta-consciousness because it has to outlast its own death and be able to have memories of the past is an asinine observation.

This putative conscious-independent reality has to have the ability not to flicker in and out of existence, or change shape, or whatever. How does it achieve this? Obviously such questions are ill-conceived. There is nothing wrong with hypothesising something and not giving any further explanations as to why it is as it is. Some things are just brute facts.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

I am not using memory in the same sense that you are. I am using it in the sense of a conscious recollection.

That would be memory recall. But anyway, the storage function for memory is not part of your consciousness.

The question here is whether it is possible for something to be simply a brute fact where no further explanation is relevant. If you say that everything must have an explanation --including the consistency of the external world -- then why is this? Can you demonstrate that nothing is simply a brute fact but always needs an explanation?

I think we have to try hard to explain something before we give up on it as brute fact.

Unintelligible assertions cannot be brute facts.

It is not unintelligible that consciousness might be brain function.

We know nothing about anything wholly independent of consciousness. It's nature is not something we could ever know. This does not equate to the denial of its existence. It might well exist. But it's more economic to suppose it doesn't. It's not needed in our metaphysical explanations of reality. If we are concerned about Ockham's principle a meta-consciousness will suffice (although I personally am not particularly concerned about his principle. Over metaphysical disputes people invariable just use his razor in such a manner that it always supports their own position. Not very helpful).

Invoking Occam to compare two metaphysics that are not well worked-out seems premature.

I really don't think we're getting very far with this. I merely mention that a meta-consciousness associated with reality as a whole is something that at least we have a vague inkling of unlike some consciousness-independent reality. Saying there's a problem with this meta-consciousness because it has to outlast its own death and be able to have memories of the past is an asinine observation.

It has to outlast your death and it has to have a complete memory of the universe. These are not attributes your personal consciousness has.

This putative conscious-independent reality has to have the ability not to flicker in and out of existence, or change shape, or whatever. How does it achieve this? Obviously such questions are ill-conceived. There is nothing wrong with hypothesising something and not giving any further explanations as to why it is as it is. Some things are just brute facts.

You are saying that you can hypothesize an explanation for the universe based on an analogy from personal consciousness and then simply ignore all the attributes of the hypothesized thing that do not easily follow from the analogy. In particular, the thing from which you are analogizing---personal human consciousness---is one of the very attributes of the metamind that you cannot take by analogy. Personal human consciousness does not give rise to personal human consciousness. The entire thing is a circular god-of-the-gaps argument.

It may be right, but it is half-baked nonetheless.

~~ Paul

[Amaterialist HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Hypno is drawing an analogy from human consciousness to some sort of god consciousness that "thinks" the universe. That's fine, as long as he doesn't take the analogy too far and still claim he has a basis for his theory. In particular, the idea that the god consciousness is self-sustaining cannot be derived from the analogy.

I've never said the theory is perfect.

My only argument has been that a conscious thinker of the universe (whatever minimum properies it must have to be viable) is much more parsimonious than either theorising about some self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism).

The former is predicated on something known to exist - consciousness. The latter two theories aren't predicated on anything!

The evidence is the consistency of the external world. Your consciousness is not the source of this consistency, since it is consistent even when you are not conscious of it. You can claim that the consistency is due to your memory, but your memory is not part of your consciousness, so you cannot know that it's actually your memory.

Personally, I'm more comfortable with God running the show than some unconscious part of my/our mind(s).

~
HypnoPsi

[Amaterialist HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

If we hypothesis some meta-awareness underlying and sustaining reality as a whole, then at least we have some idea what we are talking about since we are conscious ourselves.

Exactly!

Materialism - predicated on nothing known to exist.
Physicalism - predicated on nothing known to exist.

Theistic phenomenalism - predicated on something known to exist (consciousness).

We know that consciousness exists. We do not know, and can never know, whether any consciousness-independent reality exists. So proposing some sort of meta-consciousness accounting for the consistency of the external world is more metaphysically economic than some putative conscious-independent reality.

Yes, but those who have thought in a way opposite to this their whole lives (or invested their egos in it too much) will never see it this way, though. It's only the future generation that will change things.

~
HypnoPsi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

We do not know, and can never know, whether any consciousness-independent reality exists.

This is just wrong. Why do you keep repeating it?

~~ Paul