From: jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (P'relan)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Natural Science, Natural Religion (was Re: Thoughts on Biblical...)
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:22:04 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics

P'relan pops in from a rather busy reality to answer a few questions...

In article <1992Apr9.053022.25308@cco.caltech.edu>, lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals) writes:
> We've also got quite a few complex feedback mechanisms built into us.  The
> universe as a whole shows no evidence of such feedback loops.

"I'd immediately object if you simply said `feedback loops' but with the
qualifier `such' I'm not sure how to answer and I'm not certain of your
meaning.  I'm not saying that the universe is conscious in a manner similar to
human consciousness though and perhaps you have that misconception or perhaps
I've misunderstood you entirely."

>  Also, if you
> postulate some sort of cosmic consciousness, bear in mind that it would
> typically take years for the equivalent of a single synapse to fire.

P'relan nods, "Yes, the different time scale is a fundamental part of my
concept."

>  Also, if
> the universe is expanding, it's literally impossible (unless everything we know
> about physics is wrong) for a signal to travel from one side of this proposed
> conscious entity to the other.  Talk about the right hand not knowing what the
> left hand is doing!

"Perhaps, perhaps not.  Actually breaking the speed of light barrier would have
much worse consequences for our common sense concept of causality than it would
on physics - we've had the choice in physics to reject causality before and
we've refused it again and again because our common sense says otherwise.  But
anyway, I'm not objecting to you on those grounds just pointing out something I
find interesting and often unknown.  There are possibilities though of breaking
the light barrier in nicer ways - nicer in that they seem to be impossible for
humans to construct and use (such as the rotating toroidal black hole which can
be used to time travel according to general relativity) - which may be possible
for a cosmological entity.  I'm also not sure if knowledge of the entire state
of the entity at one point is required or not...have to think on that more when
I have time in a month or so..."

>>I grant that scientists are busy trying to track down the physical seat of
>>e.g. artistic expression.  I personally doubt they'll find a chunk of "art
>>neurons", or an "artistic electrochemistry", etc.  And we *still* haven't the
>>faintest idea of where the fundamental attribute of *life* comes from:  there
>>are too many oddball cases, like spontaneously assembling viruses.  (Carl
>>Sagan would simply assert that there is a purely physical explanation.
>>Personally, I consider that as great a leap of faith as that required to
>>believe in a god or gods, ergo not the answer he claims it is.)
> 
> The primary difficulty in tracking down "where the fundamental attribute of
> *life* comes from" is DEFINING the term "life."  It's when you've got someone
> who says, basically, "I can't define `life,' but I know it when I see it," that
> the difficulty arises.  The human mind is pretty good at devising questions that
> have no meaning (What is the sound of one hand clapping? comes to mind).  That
> ability shouldn't be mistaken for an indication that the questions make sense.

P'relan says, "I'd agree with your statement of the problem - we don't have a
good definition of life or, along the same lines, of intelligence.  I'm not
sure that we'll have good definitions until (if) we find extraterrestrial
life/intelligence because I think our definitions (if we find them) we'll be
very terracentric.

"But what I was going to answer originally was `questions that have no
meaning.'  I'm not sure exactly what meaning is, but if by meaning you mean
(yes, that construct is intentional) `are capable of having a logical answer
provided for them' then I'd agree.  But questions that have no meaning can be
quite useful...many uses for them in Zen and they do make sense, just not
logic."

~~~
P'relan
jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu