May existence be a kind of "maturation" process for MAL?

[AshvinP]

To Ashvin and Hedge: I'm basically hypothetically posing that there might be different scenarios of the MAL/universe evolutionary process:

1. The "random multiverse" bottom-up scenario: there are no built-in "instincts" or "laws" that govern the unfolding of the MAL ideations, and because of the absence of such laws, the ideations unfold randomly in an unlimited variety of laws, instincts, forms and structures, with the "spaces" occupied by these structures not necessarily overlapping with each other and possibly isolated, sort of like semi-autonomous realms of conscious structures. Because they are random, most of them disintegrate, but some of them that have the laws appropriate for maintaining self-sustainable structures and protecting them from the surrounding chaos will survive and further evolve and develop. The advantage of this scenario is that no explanation is needed for the pre-existence of a specific set of instincts or laws.

2. The consciousness universe with built-in laws/instincts - the BK's version. This is still a bottom-up scenario where more evolved higher-cognitive-level structures develop based on the more primitive instincts. This scenario still has an explanatory gap: where did these instincts/laws come from, and why these particular laws and not any others? Is it because the MAL tried different ones and failed (which would essentially bring us to scenario #1), or is it because these particular laws/instincts are "just there" and could not be of any other kind?

3. The top-down "theistic" scenario where the MAL is a highly developed and meta-cognitive Mind that (for some reason) creates the universe of alters and guides its evolution based on pre-meditated set of laws.

4. A little crazy scenario where both #2 and #3 (and may be even #1) are true - it is where the evolution of MAL "in time" unfolds according to #1 or #2, but "beyond time" the "instinctual state" and "omniscient state" co-exist simultaneously and it is impossible to say which one caused which.

Any other scenarios?

I'm actually not personally biased towards any of those scenarios, but, as a curious amateur philosopher and a "possibilian", still want to explore all of them as possibilities and know their pros and cons.

#1 makes very little sense to me as you formulate it above. How has the unlimited ideational randomness evolved out of MAL, so there is no more potential for random ideation? That potential for true randomness in eternal MAL essence would likely mean no sustained existence is possible beyond the most simple structures. Also, if we are going to posit any sort of "semi-autonomous realms of conscious structures", we must abandon monism and endorse pluralism. There can only be one fully interwoven, interdependent realm of ideation under monist idealism.

I don't see any issue for #2-3 combo, except I would reformulate the language considerably. We don't need to assume any premeditated "purposes", just the natural unfolding of psychic processes with inner lawfulness. That is how we experience our own development from infants to adults, after all. The infant has no premeditated purpose (leaving aside any issues related to reincarnation now). Asking where that inner lawfulness came from also does not make sense if MAL is eternal in its essence, which I think it must be under the assumptions of monist idealism.

[Eugene I]

#1 makes very little sense to me as you formulate it above. How has the unlimited ideational randomness evolved out of MAL, so there is no more potential for random ideation? That potential for true randomness in eternal MAL essence would likely mean no sustained existence is possible beyond the most simple structures. Also, if we are going to posit any sort of "semi-autonomous realms of conscious structures", we must abandon monism and endorse pluralism. There can only be one fully interwoven, interdependent realm of ideation under monist idealism.

I'm not defending #1, but I still don't see any contradiction here. "True randomness" necessarily includes structures and constructs of any high complexity, otherwise, if any structure is excluded, then that is not "true randomness" anymore but a "selective randomness" that does not allow for certain structures. It's a known mathematical fact that if you take any truly random unlimited sequence of two-digit numbers and encode them with letters, it is guaranteed that somewhere along that sequence you will find the whole Library of Congress .

[Hedge90]

#1 makes very little sense to me as you formulate it above. How has the unlimited ideational randomness evolved out of MAL, so there is no more potential for random ideation? That potential for true randomness in eternal MAL essence would likely mean no sustained existence is possible beyond the most simple structures. Also, if we are going to posit any sort of "semi-autonomous realms of conscious structures", we must abandon monism and endorse pluralism. There can only be one fully interwoven, interdependent realm of ideation under monist idealism.

I'm not defending #1, but I still don't see any contradiction here. "True randomness" necessarily includes structures and constructs of any high complexity, otherwise, if any structure is excluded, then that is not "true randomness" anymore but a "selective randomness" that does not allow for certain structures. It's a known mathematical fact that if you take any truly random unlimited sequence of two-digit numbers and encode them with letters, it is guaranteed that somewhere along that sequence you will find the whole Library of Congress .

Yeah ok, but in that case a universe like our very logically and causally coherent one would be very, very, very, very rare. Unimaginable rare. And with every single moment the chance of something truly random happening, like a giant fucking diamond appearing in your kitchen to ask you about next week's Quidditch game, or the whole grand shebang just being blanked out by something chaotic, would be nigh infinitely higher than the continuation of this seemingly cause-effect based universe.

[AshvinP]

#1 makes very little sense to me as you formulate it above. How has the unlimited ideational randomness evolved out of MAL, so there is no more potential for random ideation? That potential for true randomness in eternal MAL essence would likely mean no sustained existence is possible beyond the most simple structures. Also, if we are going to posit any sort of "semi-autonomous realms of conscious structures", we must abandon monism and endorse pluralism. There can only be one fully interwoven, interdependent realm of ideation under monist idealism.

I'm not defending #1, but I still don't see any contradiction here. "True randomness" necessarily includes structures and constructs of any high complexity, otherwise, if any structure is excluded, then that is not "true randomness" anymore but a "selective randomness" that does not allow for certain structures. It's a known mathematical fact that if you take any truly random unlimited sequence of two-digit numbers and encode them with letters, it is guaranteed that somewhere along that sequence you will find the whole Library of Congress .

That is not "true randomness" in an ontological sense. It is starting from an already structured reality which operates by way of cognizable mathematical principles. I think part of the problem here is that people confuse "epistemic randomness" (not having sufficient information to predict outcomes) and what you call "selective randomness" (selecting within pre-existing structure without premeditated purpose) with "true randomness". Once you have either of the former, you don't have the latter. So maybe your #1 was trying to say there is no premeditated purpose to the natural selection process (at least no purpose independent of our own purposes that we can speak of now), but it occurs within existing ideational structure. In which case, I agree with #1.

[Eugene I]

Yeah ok, but in that case a universe like our very logically and causally coherent one would be very, very, very, very rare. Unimaginable rare. And with every single moment the chance of something truly random happening, like a giant fucking diamond appearing in your kitchen to ask you about next week's Quidditch game, or the whole grand shebang just being blanked out by something chaotic, would be nigh infinitely higher than the continuation of this seemingly cause-effect based universe.

Well, as I said in the random number analogy, even though such universe would be indeed extremely rare, the chance of it actually happening would still be 100% because MAL has unlimited time to try all possible variants and it is guaranteed that it will eventually run into the structured universe like ours.

May be my analogy with random numbers is not quite appropriate here. What I actually meant is the randomness of the "instincts"/archetypes/laws. Once a random archetype/instinct emerges, it stays until it is able to sustain structures that would "reward" that archetype. If its structures disintegrate, then the archetype will die out. So, once the successful and self-sustaining set of instincts/archetypes emerges, it will keep generating structures that will undergo their own evolutionary process, but no structures will emerge there that would violate the archetypes/laws, so "diamonds" will not appear where they are tot supposed to appear according to the archetypes. In other words, it's the natural selection of the randomly emerging archetypes/instincts each giving rise to structures that obey those archetypes (so the structures themselves are not random anymore).

Bernardo actually in one of his dialogs expressed something similar when he suggested that MAL has been trying to manifest ideations instinctively in many different "ways" until it found by trial-and-error a way to manifest the structured universe where we happen to live. Now, this BK's view suggests that MAL is trying these different "ways" sequentially in time. But it is also possible that the MAL makes such trials in parallel like in a multicore processor running parallel threads (if it has sufficient cognitive resources for that of course).

[Eugene I]

That is not "true randomness" in an ontological sense. It is starting from an already structured reality which operates by way of cognizable mathematical principles. I think part of the problem here is that people confuse "epistemic randomness" (not having sufficient information to predict outcomes) and what you call "selective randomness" (selecting within pre-existing structure without premeditated purpose) with "true randomness". Once you have either of the former, you don't have the latter. So maybe your #1 was trying to say there is no premeditated purpose to the natural selection process (at least no purpose independent of our own purposes that we can speak of now), but it occurs within existing ideational structure. In which case, I agree with #1.

In certain sense I agree. Even the very ability to create and experience any ideations is already a certain pre-requisite mechanism that has to be there in order for the forms to unfold. So there must be some non-random minimal structure or function in consciousness just for the creation and experiencing of forms to happen. The question is whether or not the particular guiding instincts/archetypes for the unfolding ideations are part of that structure as well.

[AshvinP]

That is not "true randomness" in an ontological sense. It is starting from an already structured reality which operates by way of cognizable mathematical principles. I think part of the problem here is that people confuse "epistemic randomness" (not having sufficient information to predict outcomes) and what you call "selective randomness" (selecting within pre-existing structure without premeditated purpose) with "true randomness". Once you have either of the former, you don't have the latter. So maybe your #1 was trying to say there is no premeditated purpose to the natural selection process (at least no purpose independent of our own purposes that we can speak of now), but it occurs within existing ideational structure. In which case, I agree with #1.

In certain sense I agree. Even the very ability to create and experience any ideations is already a certain pre-requisite mechanism that has to be there in order for the forms to unfold. So there must be some non-random minimal structure or function in consciousness just for the creation and experiencing of forms to happen. The question is whether or not the particular guiding instincts/archetypes for the unfolding ideations are part of that structure as well.

Right, so if we compare that "minimal structure" to the simple equations which give rise to the Mandelbrot fractals, it indicates that very complex and novel ideational structures can unfold from the most minimal structure. When we speak of "archetypes" and "instincts", it seems to me we are speaking of whatever that "minimal structure" happens to be. What we can now cognize as the meaning of archetypes/instincts within the sense-world is surely a very dim reflection of their full essential meaning, but probably the best intellectual concepts to employ (of course I prefer "archetypal beings"). I guess it would help to specify the function of this particular exercise. If we are trying to identify specific instinctual patterns involved, then we can only speak of it at the lowest possible resolution by way of abstract intellectual concepts. And since MAL is eternal in essence, all such claims will be relational, i.e. from this or that particular spatiotemporal perspective, how does MAL appear to unfold? We are not describing absolute states of MAL at time A, time B, time C, etc.

But it seems to me the general issue we are asking about with this exercise is that of "necessity vs. freedom/purpose". We want to know if, when we call MAL "instinctual", that rules out the possibility of MAL also allowing for freedom and purpose to unfold from within it. My informed opinion is that it is a false dichotomy. If we were to stand apart from MAL and all that unfolds within it, then we could speculate, "it all had to unfold the way it did from the beginning". But that's a hypothetical perspective which can never exist. Our essential relational perspective is not other than that of MAL. So if we can develop purposes and freedom from within our relational perspective, as we align our desires/will with what results from them, then it makes no sense to say MAL is not also purposeful and free in the same way we (potentially) are. And it makes a lot of sense to say MAL is purposeful and free through our evolving perspectives.

[Hedge90]

On a sidenote, why are you people so sure that time doesn't exist for MAL? I mean, if there is a structure to its ideations (one follows from the other), and it experiences them in that order, isn't that basically "time"?

[Eugene I]

On a sidenote, why are you people so sure that time doesn't exist for MAL? I mean, if there is a structure to its ideations (one follows from the other), and it experiences them in that order, isn't that basically "time"?

I actually agree, there must be some way for MAL to change, even though that "changing" may not be the same dimension of change in the alters' world. In other words, MAL's "time" and time of the apparent universe and our internal time may not be the same.

If we look at it from the phenomenological/experiential perspective, we see two aspects in the stream of our conscious experience: the changing and the permanent. The forms are always changing, but the formless (awareness/experiencing/beingness-suchness) never changes. So in a way, we can say that the forms exist "in time" but the formless abides beyond time. But since both aspects are inseparable from each other, we can as well say that MAL exists in time and beyond time simultaneously.

[dachmidt]

That is not "true randomness" in an ontological sense. It is starting from an already structured reality which operates by way of cognizable mathematical principles. I think part of the problem here is that people confuse "epistemic randomness" (not having sufficient information to predict outcomes) and what you call "selective randomness" (selecting within pre-existing structure without premeditated purpose) with "true randomness". Once you have either of the former, you don't have the latter. So maybe your #1 was trying to say there is no premeditated purpose to the natural selection process (at least no purpose independent of our own purposes that we can speak of now), but it occurs within existing ideational structure. In which case, I agree with #1.

In certain sense I agree. Even the very ability to create and experience any ideations is already a certain pre-requisite mechanism that has to be there in order for the forms to unfold. So there must be some non-random minimal structure or function in consciousness just for the creation and experiencing of forms to happen. The question is whether or not the particular guiding instincts/archetypes for the unfolding ideations are part of that structure as well.

Right, so if we compare that "minimal structure" to the simple equations which give rise to the Mandelbrot fractals, it indicates that very complex and novel ideational structures can unfold from the most minimal structure. When we speak of "archetypes" and "instincts", it seems to me we are speaking of whatever that "minimal structure" happens to be. What we can now cognize as the meaning of archetypes/instincts within the sense-world is surely a very dim reflection of their full essential meaning, but probably the best intellectual concepts to employ (of course I prefer "archetypal beings"). I guess it would help to specify the function of this particular exercise. If we are trying to identify specific instinctual patterns involved, then we can only speak of it at the lowest possible resolution by way of abstract intellectual concepts. And since MAL is eternal in essence, all such claims will be relational, i.e. from this or that particular spatiotemporal perspective, how does MAL appear to unfold? We are not describing absolute states of MAL at time A, time B, time C, etc.

But it seems to me the general issue we are asking about with this exercise is that of "necessity vs. freedom/purpose". We want to know if, when we call MAL "instinctual", that rules out the possibility of MAL also allowing for freedom and purpose to unfold from within it. My informed opinion is that it is a false dichotomy. If we were to stand apart from MAL and all that unfolds within it, then we could speculate, "it all had to unfold the way it did from the beginning". But that's a hypothetical perspective which can never exist. Our essential relational perspective is not other than that of MAL. So if we can develop purposes and freedom from within our relational perspective, as we align our desires/will with what results from them, then it makes no sense to say MAL is not also purposeful and free in the same way we (potentially) are. And it makes a lot of sense to say MAL is purposeful and free through our evolving perspectives.

That is not "true randomness" in an ontological sense. It is starting from an already structured reality which operates by way of cognizable mathematical principles. I think part of the problem here is that people confuse "epistemic randomness" (not having sufficient information to predict outcomes) and what you call "selective randomness" (selecting within pre-existing structure without premeditated purpose) with "true randomness". Once you have either of the former, you don't have the latter. So maybe your #1 was trying to say there is no premeditated purpose to the natural selection process (at least no purpose independent of our own purposes that we can speak of now), but it occurs within existing ideational structure. In which case, I agree with #1.

In certain sense I agree. Even the very ability to create and experience any ideations is already a certain pre-requisite mechanism that has to be there in order for the forms to unfold. So there must be some non-random minimal structure or function in consciousness just for the creation and experiencing of forms to happen. The question is whether or not the particular guiding instincts/archetypes for the unfolding ideations are part of that structure as well.

Right, so if we compare that "minimal structure" to the simple equations which give rise to the Mandelbrot fractals, it indicates that very complex and novel ideational structures can unfold from the most minimal structure. When we speak of "archetypes" and "instincts", it seems to me we are speaking of whatever that "minimal structure" happens to be. What we can now cognize as the meaning of archetypes/instincts within the sense-world is surely a very dim reflection of their full essential meaning, but probably the best intellectual concepts to employ (of course I prefer "archetypal beings"). I guess it would help to specify the function of this particular exercise. If we are trying to identify specific instinctual patterns involved, then we can only speak of it at the lowest possible resolution by way of abstract intellectual concepts. And since MAL is eternal in essence, all such claims will be relational, i.e. from this or that particular spatiotemporal perspective, how does MAL appear to unfold? We are not describing absolute states of MAL at time A, time B, time C, etc.

But it seems to me the general issue we are asking about with this exercise is that of "necessity vs. freedom/purpose". We want to know if, when we call MAL "instinctual", that rules out the possibility of MAL also allowing for freedom and purpose to unfold from within it. My informed opinion is that it is a false dichotomy. If we were to stand apart from MAL and all that unfolds within it, then we could speculate, "it all had to unfold the way it did from the beginning". But that's a hypothetical perspective which can never exist. Our essential relational perspective is not other than that of MAL. So if we can develop purposes and freedom from within our relational perspective, as we align our desires/will with what results from them, then it makes no sense to say MAL is not also purposeful and free in the same way we (potentially) are. And it makes a lot of sense to say MAL is purposeful and free through our evolving perspectives.

What I find interesting are the ideas, that BK raises both in "More than allegory" and "Decoding Jung's Metaphysics" (as far as I get it correctly).

1. In "More than allegory", BK claims that human's mission is to raise questions in order for MAL to get to know itself. However, the answers lie within MAL itself. Correct me if I am wrong, but for me, for answers to exist within MAL, there has to be some form of intention, "likes", "preferences"... within MAL (everything we metaphysically sum up as archetypal patterns).

2. Furthermore Jung distinguishes between two forms or parts of the psyche: "instinct" and "spirit". While instinct is the primitive one, unfolding by static patterns or laws, the spirit is much more dynamic, relational and wise. It is able to undermine its instincts for the common good.
For me, it is the spirit that holds the "answers", which is why the spirit correlates with the degree of self-knowledge and therefore the questions we humans raise.

Trying to bring 1. and 2. together:
If we use the terms "instinct" and "spirit", MAL might have started with a major ratio of instinct (probably up to 100%), while the spirit only existed in potentiality. It is therefore, that we perceive the universe in the beginning as something, that only unfolds by unchangable patterns, that we call laws of nature.

With the degree of increasing self-awareness by living creatures, the spirit evolves continously and with it, the knowledge of its intentions, preferences and so on. It is this volitional deliberate spirit of MAL, that humans probably call God.

And while the spirit of MAL increases in ratio, the instinct automatically has to decrease.
It is this observation, that Thomas Campbell (an ideal physicist) in his BIG Theory of Everything equates to "entropy".
While matter (the instinctive activity of MAL) tends to lower states of order (= useless energy), consciousness and self-awareness (=spirit) tends to higher states of order (=useful energy). For him this is also the reason why MAL prefers love over fear, unity over division, empathy over greed. They all represent higher states of order and therefore an outpouring of psychic energy, that can be used to elaborate on new possibilities.

This probably also correlates with your kind of thinking, Hedge?