Page 2 of 20
Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 1:41 am
by Eugene I
Because humans with meta-cognition have more degrees of freedom than non-human instinctive animals which in turn have more degrees of freedom than non-living Nature. A human can think-act in seemingly 'random' ways while the rest of Nature cannot. That's what I understand his argument to be.
Well, I would think the opposite: a meta-cognitive human, having more degrees of freedom, by exercising his meta-cognitive freedom of choice, can decide to exercise only selected choices according his pre-meditated purposes, and by doing this is capable of creating extremely ordered structures (computer programs, pieces of music, engineering structures etc).
I remember hearing from one of BK's interviews that the reasoning behind his view of non-metacognitive MAL has more to do with the moral problem of theodicy. He mentioned how cruel the nature is, giving an example of extreme suffering of an elephant eaten alive by lions for 6 hours. His argument was that a benevolent and meta-cognitive MAL would not create a natural world with so much suffering of animals, let alone humans (in genocides, wars, children dying from cancer etc)
Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 1:49 am
by AshvinP
Eugene I wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 1:41 am
Because humans with meta-cognition have more degrees of freedom than non-human instinctive animals which in turn have more degrees of freedom than non-living Nature. A human can think-act in seemingly 'random' ways while the rest of Nature cannot. That's what I understand his argument to be.
Well, I would think the opposite: a meta-cognitive human, having more degrees of freedom, by exercising his meta-cognitive freedom of choice, can decide to exercise only selected choices according his pre-meditated purposes, and by doing this is capable of creating extremely ordered structures (computer programs, pieces of music, engineering structures etc).
I remember hearing from one of BK's interviews that the reasoning behind his view of non-metacognitive MAL has more to do with the moral problem of theodicy. He mentioned how cruel the nature is, giving an example of extreme suffering of an elephant eaten alive by lions for 6 hours. His argument was that a benevolent and meta-cognitive MAL would not create a natural world with so much suffering of animals, let alone humans (in genocides, wars, children dying from cancer etc)
Yes I'm sure the 'problem of evil' is a reason as well, but I have definitely heard him make the other argument many times. Usually he refers to a crocodile or another animal's behavior that we can predict with exactness.
A purposive intelligent designer is also a way of explaining the order and fine-tuning, but BK would say it's an ad hoc addition because instinctive MAL is a sufficient explanation.
Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:13 am
by Brad Walker
Why couldn't a meta-cognitive subject decide to appear instinctive?
Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:25 am
by Eugene I
Brad Walker wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:13 am
Why couldn't a meta-cognitive subject decide to appear instinctive?
It could, but why? To pretend to look like an idiot?
Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:29 am
by AshvinP
Brad Walker wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:13 am
Why couldn't a meta-cognitive subject decide to appear instinctive?
It could, but that's two layers of ad hocness. One, there is a meta-cognitive Subject and, two, the meta-cognitive Subject is pretending to be purely instinctive.
Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:33 am
by Brad Walker
Appearing "instinctive" (physical simulation) might have been the only option other than eternal loneliness.
Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:50 am
by AshvinP
Brad Walker wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:33 am
Appearing "instinctive" (physical simulation) might have been the only option other than eternal loneliness.
All of that is possible, but none of it makes the meta-cognitive argument for order any more convincing than the non-meta-cognitive argument.
Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:47 am
by Brad Walker
Even BK admits he doesn't have a solution to cosmic fine-tuning. Describe how a non-metacognitive entity evolves to produce this universe, accept a meta-cognitive subject with sufficient knowledge, or embrace the infinitely infinite Multiverse.
Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:49 am
by Brad Walker
The simplest evolution of a non-metacognitive subject into a universe probably includes evolution into an intermediate "omniscient" subject.
Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:12 am
by Eugene I
Brad Walker wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:49 am
The simplest evolution of a non-metacognitive subject into a universe probably includes evolution into an intermediate "omniscient" subject.
It does not have to be "omniscient" or able to embrace infinite Multiverses, it just needs to be meta-cognitive, smart enough and to have sufficient mental computational resources to run simulations of finite "nature"-looking virtual realities.