What Wind Tunnels Can Tell Us About Consciousness

[lorenzop]

Re the Barfield quote (this is probably in other thread), how do we know the world is essentially unintelligable chaos without thinking?
I understand modern Physics suggests this . . . reality is particles\probability waves\etc . . . which is perhaps why Barfield went this way.
I can also see how this explains how different sets of people could view the world differently.
But it seems right from the Materialist playbook - that the phenomenal world (our experience) is a calculataion

[AshvinP]

Re the Barfield quote (this is probably in other thread), how do we know the world is essentially unintelligable chaos without thinking?
I understand modern Physics suggests this . . . reality is particles\probability waves\etc . . . which is perhaps why Barfield went this way.
I can also see how this explains how different sets of people could view the world differently.
But it seems right from the Materialist playbook - that the phenomenal world (our experience) is a calculataion

Well, we have gone over this at some length here. It is the very core of Philosophy of Freedom. All it requires is sound unprejudiced thinking through one's own experience of the world. And by "thinking through", it is meant a good deal of inner effort and good faith reasoning. But the more recent member this forum, Federica, who responded quite skeptically about this claim as well when I first mentioned it maybe a month ago, has shown it can easily be done and verified for oneself. She has further shown how much deep insight into all sorts of unsuspected corners of reality can rapidly emerge from such an endeavor.

To be honest, I don't want to type out yet another summary of this phenomenology of thinking unless there is serious interest. And if there is, one might as well try to go through Steiner's PoF and then come back with specific questions about passages as necessary. It should be noted it isn't only modern physics which points to this, but as Barfield notes, modern philosophy (phenomenology, and not just Steiner), psychology, neuroscience. Since he wrote that passage in the 1950s, I would say even greater verification has come through cognitive science and AI research.

[Jim Cross]

Other than that, I don't know how I can get you to understand that this is NOT everything is models.

Not to belabor the point, but if as you suggest:
1. reality builds models (including consciousness as a model)
2. builds physical models, out of physical 'substance', builds models out of itself
therefore, even if we grant that reality began as nonmodel matter, it converts itself into models.
When everything is a model you don't have models anymore - you are right back to where you started.

(for example thought experiment-> reality converts itself into model airplanes)

3. reality selects for bigger brains
ultimately the cosmos is one model, one brain.

Perhaps you are saying reality shows restraint and only builds model once in a blue moon, or maybe the physical models are of that mystery substance ie 'emergent properties'

One last try.

A model of an airplane is SMALLER than the airplane. It is LESS than the original airplane.

So models within models within.... that just leads to things smaller or lesser than the originals, not something bigger.

This ties directly to Bergson's filter model for consciousness but with an explanation. Consciousness, since it is a model, is always going to be less than what is being modeled. It isn't so much a filter as a it is a factor of scaling.

You could perhaps avoid this problem with a sort of cosmic panpsychism in which the universe itself from the beginning is a conscious organism which then needs (for some reason) to create models of itself in an effort at self-reflection. This seems like the reverse of what you are saying. You seem to be saying the models become bigger rather than smaller.

I am only discussing the conscious modeling process for organisms.

[lorenzop]

Are you suggesting that 'nature' builds and evaluates models and searches for solutions?

Lorenzop,

Actually I should have just answered "yes"? That is what I am suggesting. It's called evolution.

In the spirit of one last try . . .
If nature builds models in the course of evolution (time), then one instant after the Big Bang, it's all models. Reality has built\evaluated\converted itself into models.
First, primitive models (perhaps). But really who knows . . . if nature builds models, everthing we know about nature is wrong (as I suggested earlier).
And, when everything is a model of a thing, then the notion of a model has no use.

[Jim Cross]

Are you suggesting that 'nature' builds and evaluates models and searches for solutions?

Lorenzop,

Actually I should have just answered "yes"? That is what I am suggesting. It's called evolution.

In the spirit of one last try . . .
If nature builds models in the course of evolution (time), then one instant after the Big Bang, it's all models. Reality has built\evaluated\converted itself into models.
First, primitive models (perhaps). But really who knows . . . if nature builds models, everthing we know about nature is wrong (as I suggested earlier).
And, when everything is a model of a thing, then the notion of a model has no use.

None of what you say follows from its own logic or anything I wrote.

You do understand what a model is? A physical model is a smaller or scaled version of something else physical.

1- After the Big Bang, there is a cosmos. That is something physical. It is not a model of something else because the cosmos is all there is.

2- Within the cosmos developed stars, galaxies, and planetary systems - none of these are models.

3- Life developed somehow. Life began to evolve. One of the results of evolution was animals.

4 -Animals evolved brains and some animals, at least, evolved a model of its reality to better find food and mates, avoid predators, and cope with uncertainties.

That physical model is the same as consciousness.

I never said any sort of nature in general "builds" models. Consciousness is a result of a long series of events that includes galaxies, stars, life, and brains.

[lorenzop]

You did say that nature builds models, I quoted you above. A model does not have to be a smaller\scaled version of something else - in the case of evolution as a model, a model is a pattern or figure as design for testing \ evaluation.
For example, evolution developed the eye through a succession of building\evaluating models.
This would have began with the Big Bang.

[AshvinP]

Lorenzop,

Actually I should have just answered "yes"? That is what I am suggesting. It's called evolution.

In the spirit of one last try . . .
If nature builds models in the course of evolution (time), then one instant after the Big Bang, it's all models. Reality has built\evaluated\converted itself into models.
First, primitive models (perhaps). But really who knows . . . if nature builds models, everthing we know about nature is wrong (as I suggested earlier).
And, when everything is a model of a thing, then the notion of a model has no use.

None of what you say follows from its own logic or anything I wrote.

You do understand what a model is? A physical model is a smaller or scaled version of something else physical.

1- After the Big Bang, there is a cosmos. That is something physical. It is not a model of something else because the cosmos is all there is.

2- Within the cosmos developed stars, galaxies, and planetary systems - none of these are models.

3- Life developed somehow. Life began to evolve. One of the results of evolution was animals.

4 -Animals evolved brains and some animals, at least, evolved a model of its reality to better find food and mates, avoid predators, and cope with uncertainties.

That physical model is the same as consciousness.

I never said any sort of nature in general "builds" models. Consciousness is a result of a long series of events that includes galaxies, stars, life, and brains.

Do you acknowledge that almost no present day scientists, materialist or otherwise, hold that the Cosmos as as it is normally perceived, with spatial dimension and balls of gas and rock and planetary environments, is the equivalent to the qualities of the Cosmos-itself? And if that is true, but the Cosmos-as-perceived is not a model, then what is it according to you?

[Jim Cross]

You did say that nature builds models, I quoted you above. A model does not have to be a smaller\scaled version of something else - in the case of evolution as a model, a model is a pattern or figure as design for testing \ evaluation.
For example, evolution developed the eye through a succession of building\evaluating models.
This would have began with the Big Bang.

Come on. Quote the entirety of what I wrote when you asked if I thought nature made models..

Actually I should have just answered "yes"? That is what I am suggesting. It's called evolution.

That completely agrees with what I just wrote.

4 -Animals evolved brains and some animals, at least, evolved a model of its reality to better find food and mates, avoid predators, and cope with uncertainties.

That physical model is the same as consciousness.

And remember also I am talking about a physical model, not an abstraction. That means the model is physical which means it can interact with the physical world. It is not a drawing on paper or algorithms in a program. It is something actually physical.

[Jim Cross]

In the spirit of one last try . . .
If nature builds models in the course of evolution (time), then one instant after the Big Bang, it's all models. Reality has built\evaluated\converted itself into models.
First, primitive models (perhaps). But really who knows . . . if nature builds models, everthing we know about nature is wrong (as I suggested earlier).
And, when everything is a model of a thing, then the notion of a model has no use.

None of what you say follows from its own logic or anything I wrote.

You do understand what a model is? A physical model is a smaller or scaled version of something else physical.

1- After the Big Bang, there is a cosmos. That is something physical. It is not a model of something else because the cosmos is all there is.

2- Within the cosmos developed stars, galaxies, and planetary systems - none of these are models.

3- Life developed somehow. Life began to evolve. One of the results of evolution was animals.

4 -Animals evolved brains and some animals, at least, evolved a model of its reality to better find food and mates, avoid predators, and cope with uncertainties.

That physical model is the same as consciousness.

I never said any sort of nature in general "builds" models. Consciousness is a result of a long series of events that includes galaxies, stars, life, and brains.

Do you acknowledge that almost no present day scientists, materialist or otherwise, hold that the Cosmos as as it is normally perceived, with spatial dimension and balls of gas and rock and planetary environments, is the equivalent to the qualities of the Cosmos-itself? And if that is true, but the Cosmos-as-perceived is not a model, then what is it according to you?

A model is a model of something. The cosmos is everything so it can't be a model of something else. Even if it were or could be, it is irrelevant to the discussion because consciousness arises in the organisms in the cosmos, not in the cosmos in its entirety.

I don't accept the cosmic panpsychism you seem to be advocating.

[AshvinP]

A model is a model of something. The cosmos is everything so it can't be a model of something else. Even if it were or could be, it is irrelevant to the discussion because consciousness arises in the organisms in the cosmos, not in the cosmos in its entirety.

I don't accept the cosmic panpsychism you seem to be advocating.

I made very clear that I am speaking of the Cosmos-as-perceived, with spatial dimensions, objects with quantitative properties, colors and sounds and smells and tastes, etc. Is this a model of something or not? If it's not, what is it - are all those properties the 'things-themselves'? And if it is a model of something, then how can anything else you perceive or conceive within the parameters of this model not also be a model?