From: Stephen.H.Voss.2@nd.edu (Stephen H. Voss)
Subject: Re: Next?
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Distribution: alt.consciousness
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 18:02:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.190433.1993@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
>Subject: Re: Next?
>Date: 23 Dec 92 19:04:32 -0500

>In article <ljevhgINNp9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>> Its a matter of perspective, really. I don't mean to say that we
>> are some form of being that is "above" the rest of the universe at
>> all; what I meant to say is that perhaps the element of mind may be
>> an inherent element of the universe itself.

>        This discussion sounds headed for 'Alt.Metaphysics'. Explain
>        what you mean by mind being 'an inherent element' of the
>        universe. Like gravity ? Like spacetime ? 

>        If there seems one element in common with all these 'intrinsic'
>        natural forces/orders, it's that they are very simple. By
>        this I mean they act in a global manner on all matter and
>        energy and can be predicted quite well with mathematics.

>        'Mind' (hard to define) is something extremely complex and
>        well structured. Entropy, acting on humans, destroys
>        what we normally call 'mind' rather than driving things
>        towards ever greater degrees of consciousness. The
>        universe abhors structure and complexity. Gaining
>        order requires the expendature of a great deal of energy.
>	
>> I agree that there is no shame in being wetware. However, my experiences
>> and some of the stuff I have been reading (Michael Talbot, Fred Alan
>> Wolf, for example) has led me to believe that there is a good possability
>> that there is more to the universe than can be explained in a purely
>> causative sense. This is not to say that I am committing to such a
>> belief, but neither will I commit to a belief that consciousness is
>> purely the result of biochemical processes.

>        Perhaps our concept of 'causality' is not yet sufficiently
>        refined, or the means for discovering the underlying causal
>        mechanisms behind some phenomena do not yet exist. There
>        is also the problem of where we imagine that purely human
>        inventions are actually physical forces - take the famous
>        question of 'What is the Good?' for example. In these
>        cases, the answers are not addressing universal laws at
>        all, but simply apply within the very limited sphere of
>        human thought & emotion. 

>        It seems you are trying to invent a religion. I'm afraid
>        I will have to be its first heretic. I believe that ALL
>        phenomena have causal roots, and that consciousness is
>        purely the result of biological activity. 

>        Is the brain a 'terminal' for a more universal-level sort
>        of consciousness rather than an independent entity ? If
>        so, then why do not all species evolve towards improving
>        their link with this pre-existing source of order and
>        survival advantage ? Alligators, sharks, frogs ... these
>        are extremely old species - but yet they do not get any
>        smarter or more conscious. Did they somehow get mis-wired
>        so that they can't recieve this universal mind ? If they
>        are not connected to the universal mind-template then
>        how come individual alligators show distinct 'personalities',
>        a common marker for 'mind' ?             

>-- JM
I agree that all phenomena have causal roots, and that this includes 
consciousness.  We have not sufficiently noticed something that follows from 
this.  Human and other consciousness may well be a new and tiny corner of 
the universe.  But one feature of the stuff present at the beginning, say a 
nanosecond after the big bang, was this:  it contained within itself the 
seeds of consciousness.  That is, a description of the stuff in the universe 
at that time in purely physical terms--mass, velocity, charge, spin, what 
have you--would necessary be an incomplete description of its character.  
This stuff was, in addition, at that moment, that which would one day give 
birth to the consciousness of Bach, Patricia Churchland, Amos Alonzo Stagg, 
Rudolf Carnap, you, and this present reflection on the whole process.

This is at least one thing that it means to say that consciousness is 
intrinsic to the universe, just as spacetime is.  There may or may not 
always have been consciousness--but what we can say is that no matter how 
far back in the history of the universe you go, you will find that which 
contained the capacity to generate consciousness under the right conditions, 
and that which contained the capacity to generate just such conditions.

This notion is perhaps implicit in some of Leibniz's work, and no doubt 
others' as well.  But current reflection on consciousnessness is 
insufficiently conscious of the point.

Yours truly,

Voluptua Love
 
------------------------------------------
Stephen H. Voss
University of Notre Dame
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness