Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Penrose is one of my mentors as well, Cruithne, and there IS only one Reality. What Irkle and LearnMe were alluding to are our perceptions of it, as you suggest. I will only suggest to you that not all speculations on the unknown are "wildly speculative" especially mine which is decidedly based on solidly known science including that posited by Penrose and Hameroff.
EEK, Penrose says he at least thinks the anthropic (fine-tuning) argument must be "taken seriously" even though he doesn't accept it. He's practically Irklean in his enthusiasm for ID, is he not? It was, of course, the design argument that pushed Antony Flew from atheist darling to (at least) despised deist who was willing to dialogue with evangelical scholars like Gary Habermas. ("No, it wasn't, Irkle!!! Flew just became a senile old fool!" Uh-huh - exactly 5 seconds after he announced he'd become a deist, and not a second before.)
I love how the true giants - including Alvin Plantinga - almost always sound so down-to-earth and folksy when they discuss their disciplines. They are far above any pretense and BS.
I was going to make the same point about "wild speculation." When it comes to the existence or nonexistence of a higher reality, speculation is inevitable because certainty is impossible - but I insist on the best-informed speculation of which I'm capable. The alternative - no speculation at all - robs life of much of its meaning, or so I believe. All the people I know who shrug and say "Eh, we'll find out when we die" seem like dull and one-dimensional people. As I always say, well-thought-out convictions inform every aspect of this life; they aren't just about the hereafter.
EEK, Penrose says he at least thinks the anthropic (fine-tuning) argument must be "taken seriously" even though he doesn't accept it. He's practically Irklean in his enthusiasm for ID, is he not? It was, of course, the design argument that pushed Antony Flew from atheist darling to (at least) despised deist who was willing to dialogue with evangelical scholars like Gary Habermas. ("No, it wasn't, Irkle!!! Flew just became a senile old fool!" Uh-huh - exactly 5 seconds after he announced he'd become a deist, and not a second before.)
I love how the true giants - including Alvin Plantinga - almost always sound so down-to-earth and folksy when they discuss their disciplines. They are far above any pretense and BS.
I was going to make the same point about "wild speculation." When it comes to the existence or nonexistence of a higher reality, speculation is inevitable because certainty is impossible - but I insist on the best-informed speculation of which I'm capable. The alternative - no speculation at all - robs life of much of its meaning, or so I believe. All the people I know who shrug and say "Eh, we'll find out when we die" seem like dull and one-dimensional people. As I always say, well-thought-out convictions inform every aspect of this life; they aren't just about the hereafter.
I just cautioned against using the title because it evokes unnecessary baggage. All believers implicitly accept God is intelligent and is responsible for the design of our Reality. Penrose and Hameroff comprise a significant part of my hypotheses about consciousness formation and its status as a singular quantum entity (usually known as a Bose-Einstein Condensate).
Conveniently enough, this places consciousness in what we refer to as the heavens (outer space) where all quanta ultimately reside. What strikes me about your views, Irkle is their similarity to mine about the relevance of Christianity. Our primary differences reside in the nature of God. You accept seemingly without question, our ignorant ancestors' beliefs about the nature of God despite Christ's unambiguous demonstration of a 180 degree opposite nature on the Cross.
Thanks for your nice comments and insights, Cruithne! I'll look forward to whatever else you have to add.
This is one of those odd synchronicities that seem to pepper my life: I'm well-aware of Roger Penrose, but I hadn't really given him much thought in years. However, just last night my reading on panpsychism happened to be almost entirely about his theory whereby (as summarized by Wikipedia) "Penrose and Hameroff have argued that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction)." (Don't ask me what that means.)
The book, if anyone cares, is Panpsychism in the West by David Skrbina and published by MIT Press, https://www.amazon.com/Panpsychism-W.../dp/0262693518. It's an extremely thorough history of panpsychist and quasi-panpsychist philosophy from the Ancient Greeks to the present.
Genuinely complex incidents of synchronicity - and I've had some doozies - are sufficient in themselves to make me say "Hmmm ... I don't think so" in regard to hardcore materialism.
Yes I'm aware of this work.
To put it simply, it is Penrose's view (and these are my words not his, I'm simplifying), that there is something in the fabric / structure of the universe that gives rise to consciousness. - That if you believe in the laws of physics then you must believe that the laws of physics are the same across the universe. And that if consciousness is possible on earth then it must be possible everywhere. ie it is somehow inbuilt.
Penrose is searching for the mechanisms that give rise to consciousness.
His 'Orchestrated objective reduction' (Orch OR) hypothesis posits that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons in the brain.
It is in the same field of thinking as work in quantum biology / quantum entanglement.
Here's an absolutely fantastic video by Jim Al-khalili that that can explain quantum biology / quantum entanglement far better than myself. It's fascinating.
If you watch it, let me know what you think..
As to Penrose I'm also a fan of his Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) model which hypothesizes a universe that iterates through infinite cycles. This is a model that makes far more sense to me than the standard Big Bang.
I noted in an earlier post of yours on the other thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
As I pointed out on your Ten Truths thread, your Ten Truths are little more than a manifesto of Scientism. You worship at the altar of Scientism. You posture yourself as sincere and open-minded, but you are in fact wedded to Scientism and the naturalistic paradigm as tightly as a Muslim jihadist is wedded to his. Science is the only legitimate avenue of inquiry. Science does, or eventually will, explain Everything. If Science can't investigate something, it isn't worth thinking about. Efforts to grapple with issues beyond the ken of Science are futile, generally delusional and often dangerous. Just have faith in Science - and it is a species of faith, make no mistake - and all will be well.
Science investigates the natural order, period. Science is capable of investigating only the natural order, period. If the natural order were a closed steady-state one with no beginning and no end, Scientism would be appropriate. But scientific "answers" are revised radically almost every decade, the science of 100 years ago often seems absurd ("the ether," anyone?), and virtually no one now thinks we live in a closed steady-state universe with no beginning and no end. Once Science begins speculating about the origin of the natural order, it engages in quasi-religious speculation that is no more falsifiable than is a Creator; it rules out a Creator solely on the basis of philosophical prejudices, not legitimate scientific methodology.
For those who worship at the altar of Scientism, it's surely frustrating that the great mass of humans do and always have refused to play the game. They refuse to be confined in the little box in which the devotees of Scientism choose to confine themselves. They refuse to accept the narrow definition of evidence that the devotees of Scientism insist upon. They recognize that Science answers only part of the riddle of existence and can't touch the underlying mystery; the real questions of existence, the ones that really matter, are beyond the ken of Science.
As a Christian, I welcome all scientific inquiry. God has created an uncannily orderly universe that is susceptible to scientific investigation and analysis and has blessed humans with brains and abilities uncannily suited to such investigation and analysis. Science was surely part of his plan for humanity. I factor the best scientific evidence from numerous disciplines into my Christianity. But, like most people, I simply decline to play the game of Scientism or to conduct my quest in the straitjacket that Scientism demands.
It's perhaps just a bit comical that, after a quest you suggest was as deep and wide-ranging as mine, you ended up "pretty certain" about and prepared to place your entire faith in a field of human endeavor that has proven itself to be spectacularly, embarrassingly, wrong again and again and again throughout recorded history. You really have more faith than a Muslim jihadist.
Penrose's model breaks out of the standard model slightly. I have noticed of late, other scientists starting to think about other possibilities.
I don't know if anybody has anything right here. But I'm open to any possibilities that make some kind of sense to me.
EDIT: just to add by 'wildy speculate' what I mean is, as I said earlier I don't believe there are alternate or multiple universes and I don't see the sense in speculating about that. You can't test it or observe it, even indirectly like you can with the Higgs Bosun. And testing and observation is the heart of science. The universe we are in is already vast and probably infinite. I think that's already enough to grapple with.
He would totally accept that we may be in a living system. The volume of it would be in question. But the size of a human, in the our bubble of "alive", would lend itself to us thinking its universal.
Yes I'm aware of this work.
To put it simply, it is Penrose's view (and these are my words not his, I'm simplifying), that there is something in the fabric / structure of the universe that gives rise to consciousness. - That if you believe in the laws of physics then you must believe that the laws of physics are the same across the universe. And that if consciousness is possible on earth then it must be possible everywhere. ie it is somehow inbuilt.
Penrose is searching for the mechanisms that give rise to consciousness.
His 'Orchestrated objective reduction' (Orch OR) hypothesis posits that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons in the brain.
Your first paragraph is basically panpsychism in a nutshell - i.e., consciousness (mind) is, in some way, fundamental to reality. Exactly what this might mean and how it might work is all over the map, but some modern versions are really quite close to the notions of Aristotle and Plato. The "cleanest" versions do have this occurring at the atomic, subatomic or quantum level, with consciousness being enfolded into the very structure of matter. As someone who has always spoken to his car, his house furnace, his golf clubs and his tools and encouraged them to do better, I like it!
Seriously, both panpsychism and idealism resonate strongly with me. The notion that consciousness emerged in a purely materialistic universe is fraught with difficulty. As a Christian, of course, I can fit either panpsychism or idealism quite easily into my theology.
Ditto for the simulation model. I had a good friend - one of the true luminaries in the UFO field for over 50 years - who had a complex simulation theory and was very anti-Christian. It used to drive him crazy when I'd tell him that his entire simulation theory would fit quite nicely into my Christianity.
The discussion of Penrose in the book I referenced lost me when it got into microtubules and whatnot. It's certainly one of the more complex notions of panpsychism. At the risk of incurring Harry's wrath, I have no real interest in the minutiae of science. I simply want a solid basic understanding of the key concepts as they're relevant to my quest, as well as of the debate surrounding those concepts.
According to Skrbina (the author of the book), "Hameroff and Penrose's analysis is primarily focused on the brain and its neurons, but they emphasize the such a process could appear anywhere microtubules are present. Since they are universally present in all living cells, from animals to plants to one-celled life forms, all living beings would presumably experience some degree of consciousness." Hameroff later went beyond this and suggested "perhaps panpsychists are in some way correct and composites of mental processes are fundamental, like mass, spin or charge."
When confronted with thinking such as this, across numerous disciplines, it's difficult for me to believe anyone really thinks this sort of stuff "just happened" with no external design and guidance. I realize this sort of conclusion must be resisted until it becomes irresistible, but for me it's become well-nigh irresistible.
Your first paragraph is basically panpsychism in a nutshell - i.e., consciousness (mind) is, in some way, fundamental to reality. Exactly what this might mean and how it might work is all over the map, but some modern versions are really quite close to the notions of Aristotle and Plato. The "cleanest" versions do have this occurring at the atomic, subatomic or quantum level, with consciousness being enfolded into the very structure of matter. As someone who has always spoken to his car, his house furnace, his golf clubs and his tools and encouraged them to do better, I like it!
Seriously, both panpsychism and idealism resonate strongly with me. The notion that consciousness emerged in a purely materialistic universe is fraught with difficulty. As a Christian, of course, I can fit either panpsychism or idealism quite easily into my theology.
Ditto for the simulation model. I had a good friend - one of the true luminaries in the UFO field for over 50 years - who had a complex simulation theory and was very anti-Christian. It used to drive him crazy when I'd tell him that his entire simulation theory would fit quite nicely into my Christianity.
The discussion of Penrose in the book I referenced lost me when it got into microtubules and whatnot. It's certainly one of the more complex notions of panpsychism. At the risk of incurring Harry's wrath, I have no real interest in the minutiae of science. I simply want a solid basic understanding of the key concepts as they're relevant to my quest, as well as of the debate surrounding those concepts.
According to Skrbina (the author of the book), "Hameroff and Penrose's analysis is primarily focused on the brain and its neurons, but they emphasize the such a process could appear anywhere microtubules are present. Since they are universally present in all living cells, from animals to plants to one-celled life forms, all living beings would presumably experience some degree of consciousness." Hameroff later went beyond this and suggested "perhaps panpsychists are in some way correct and composites of mental processes are fundamental, like mass, spin or charge."
When confronted with thinking such as this, across numerous disciplines, it's difficult for me to believe anyone really thinks this sort of stuff "just happened" with no external design and guidance. I realize this sort of conclusion must be resisted until it becomes irresistible, but for me it's become well-nigh irresistible.
You see me say "alive" a lot. I have not spoken to one trained person over 25 some years that ever told me I was wrong. Not one. I never met a person that out right said I didn't know what I was talking about until cd and other atheist forums.
The more trained a person is the more they understand that we are being expressed by the information exchanged via state state changes. And that's just barons. Toss in "quantum computing" and "states" changes can happen any number of ways. Even supper imposed over each other. "alive", "BEC" may still have enough information exchanged to be life.
I mean how can we know? We haven't made one measure measurement with true " absolute zero" momentum". Every place we take a measurement is moving masses.
I think its just that the "particles" don't hold the "awareness" at our level. They are the thing that is changing state to express the information. When the field is seen as a whole, it may have it. I actually think its the 17 fields (plus) that have it if we could see it all. Even if its the field, "density gradients", flowing back and forth (probably in mass(means a a group)),I think does a better job of explaining it. Over "each location on the field" contains "awareness'.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 09-30-2021 at 04:41 PM..
You see me say "alive" a lot. I have not spoken to one trained person over 25 some years that ever told me I was wrong. Not one. I never met a person that out right said I didn't know what I was talking about until cd and other atheist forums.
The more trained a person is the more they understand that we are being expressed by the information exchanged via state state changes. And that's just barons. Toss in "quantum computing" and "states" changes can happen any number of ways. Even supper imposed over each other. "alive", "BEC" may still have enough information exchanged to be life.
I mean how can we know? We haven't made one measure measurement with true " absolute zero" momentum". Every place we take a measurement is moving masses.
I think its just that the "particles" don't hold the "awareness" at our level. They are the thing that is changing state to express the information. When the field is seen as a whole, it may have it. I actually think its the 17 fields (plus) that have it if we could see it all. Even if its the field, "density gradients", flowing back and forth (probably in mass(means a a group)),I think does a better job of explaining it. Over "each location on the field" contains "awareness'.
In some versions of panpsychism, the "aliveness" (or consciousness) extends throughout all systems and ultimately the universe itself - i.e., the universe's consciousness is independent of the earth's consciousness and an individual's consciousness.
Kastrup's idealism that I keep mentioning has it all as consciousness - i.e., matter or the appearance of matter being generated by consciousness - but my understanding is that the grand consciousness resides at a higher level and generates our reality.
Even with a limited version of panpsychism such as Penrose proposes (he doesn't use that term), or as true panpsychists who think consciousness is at the atomic or subatomic level of all matter (animate and inanimate) propose, how does anyone think this structure "just happened"?
To say that something like the matter-mind structure of the universe has simply always existed strikes me as intuitively implausible. I guess that's why I like idealism - it's a relatively clean and Occam-like explanation, not to mention easily reconcilable with theism.
I think I'm reaching the point where even I would have to say I scarcely know what I'm talking about.
Your first paragraph is basically panpsychism in a nutshell - i.e., consciousness (mind) is, in some way, fundamental to reality. Exactly what this might mean and how it might work is all over the map, but some modern versions are really quite close to the notions of Aristotle and Plato. The "cleanest" versions do have this occurring at the atomic, subatomic or quantum level, with consciousness being enfolded into the very structure of matter. As someone who has always spoken to his car, his house furnace, his golf clubs and his tools and encouraged them to do better, I like it!
Not exactly. Panpsychism as I understand is the view that a mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental feature of reality - that everything has a mind.
That's not exactly what Penrose is saying. What Penrose is saying is that there are mechanisms built into the fabric of the universe that have the potential to give rise to consciousness where the right conditions are in place.
ie where life exists.
To use a simplistic analogy - a bit like in a rainstorm when you get a positive and negative charge coming together to cause lightning. The lightning isn't present unless the right conditions come together.
Quote:
Seriously, both panpsychism and idealism resonate strongly with me. The notion that consciousness emerged in a purely materialistic universe is fraught with difficulty. As a Christian, of course, I can fit either panpsychism or idealism quite easily into my theology.
Ditto for the simulation model. I had a good friend - one of the true luminaries in the UFO field for over 50 years - who had a complex simulation theory and was very anti-Christian. It used to drive him crazy when I'd tell him that his entire simulation theory would fit quite nicely into my Christianity.
The discussion of Penrose in the book I referenced lost me when it got into microtubules and whatnot. It's certainly one of the more complex notions of panpsychism. At the risk of incurring Harry's wrath, I have no real interest in the minutiae of science. I simply want a solid basic understanding of the key concepts as they're relevant to my quest, as well as of the debate surrounding those concepts.
According to Skrbina (the author of the book), "Hameroff and Penrose's analysis is primarily focused on the brain and its neurons, but they emphasize the such a process could appear anywhere microtubules are present. Since they are universally present in all living cells, from animals to plants to one-celled life forms, all living beings would presumably experience some degree of consciousness." Hameroff later went beyond this and suggested "perhaps panpsychists are in some way correct and composites of mental processes are fundamental, like mass, spin or charge."
When confronted with thinking such as this, across numerous disciplines, it's difficult for me to believe anyone really thinks this sort of stuff "just happened" with no external design and guidance. I realize this sort of conclusion must be resisted until it becomes irresistible, but for me it's become well-nigh irresistible.
Well I can understand that.
I don't believe stuff 'just happened'. I believe everything occurs as an inevitable consequence of the right conditions coming together.
In an infinite universe, that contains all the same elements, at some point (possibly points if you want to consider life on other planets) the right conditions are going to occur:
A planet sitting just the right distance from the sun, sitting in the goldilocks zone, with enough time over billions of years for water to exist. And for biological life to form. And for biological life to evolve.
It took a long time for us to get here. It didn't just happen, it took billions of years to happen.
For me what it comes down to is I don't believe the universe was created. I believe it has always existed and will always exist in some form, something along the lines of Penroses model - a cyclical model. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.
The basic problem at the end of the day for me in introducing a creator - is where did the creator come from? That's the problem for me. It's the old chicken and the egg scenario. The creator would have to have come first and that's a problem I can't get around.
The Universe is wondrous and complex enough for me to not need what I feel is an unnecessary addition to the explanation of why we are here.
Not exactly. Panpsychism as I understand is the view that a mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental feature of reality - that everything has a mind.
That's not exactly what Penrose is saying. What Penrose is saying is that there are mechanisms built into the fabric of the universe that have the potential to give rise to consciousness where the right conditions are in place.
ie where life exists.
To use a simplistic analogy - a bit like in a rainstorm when you get a positive and negative charge coming together to cause lightning. The lightning isn't present unless the right conditions come together.
Well I can understand that.
I don't believe stuff 'just happened'. I believe everything occurs as an inevitable consequence of the right conditions coming together.
In an infinite universe, that contains all the same elements, at some point (possibly points if you want to consider life on other planets) the right conditions are going to occur:
A planet sitting just the right distance from the sun, sitting in the goldilocks zone, with enough time over billions of years for water to exist. And for biological life to form. And for biological life to evolve.
It took a long time for us to get here. It didn't just happen, it took billions of years to happen.
For me what it comes down to is I don't believe the universe was created. I believe it has always existed and will always exist in some form, something along the lines of Penroses model - a cyclical model. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.
The basic problem at the end of the day for me in introducing a creator - is where did the creator come from? That's the problem for me. It's the old chicken and the egg scenario. The creator would have to have come first and that's a problem I can't get around.
The Universe is wondrous and complex enough for me to not need what I feel is an unnecessary addition to the explanation of why we are here.
Why does the creator need to be separate? Why can't the creator simply be what exists? In that case, when it came into being is moot. It makes no difference whether it always existed or was born through some Big Bang. It is still what created us and its laws and processes govern our existence. For me, it is a stretch to believe that our unique consciousness just magically emerged out of something that has no consciousness at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just cautioned against using the title because it evokes unnecessary baggage. All believers implicitly accept God is intelligent and is responsible for the design of our Reality. Penrose and Hameroff comprise a significant part of my hypotheses about consciousness formation and its status as a singular quantum entity (usually known as a Bose-Einstein Condensate). 
