Ah, so this is your fault, eh? I might have known :P

I don't think so. I can see how we would all be using definitions which you disagree with given your view, but they are the most common definitions, and I think they've been consistent about their usage.

One of the points I was trying to make with DODN is that his own logical argument in the OP is essentially equivocating about definitions, given his later expansion. That is, the logical argument is written in a way that invites the reader to use the typical definitions, otherwise there's no point in distinguishing the self-awareness of humans and that of the universe. But using those definitions, step 3 is a fallacy. He then rejects that it's a fallacy by appealing to the idea that there are no distinctions (logical or otherwise) between humans and the universe, so that step 3 is not a fallacy. But in that case, the argument becomes circular because under such a definition the first step is already the conclusion.

I think that's different from what OrP said, but maybe I misunderstood. The above is what I thought you would claim, and what seems like DODN's approach now, at least to me.

The self awareness of the whole universe is local. That’s us. Local beings so far as our senses can determine. Local enough to qualify.

Why virtualize that self awareness is non local?

Is the whole universe including non locality?

Is language more flexible than it can take rigid form?

well, no, because he has totally ignored it :P

Not "totally" ignored:

I do acknowledge the limitations of language in this way, that our words do not always capture the intended information. Fortunately, I've been able to mostly avoid this by providing specific examples, such as the {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2} analogy and the "less than 7 feet [or 10 feet] in length" property.

This type of definitional problem arises also with the concept of an "individual" state in the universe. I tried to poke at that one earlier, but decided it was probably too technical to make meaningful progress.

If the universe consists of "all states" and those states are distinguishable in some way (so that we can identify an "individual" state), then the universe is distinguishable into discrete "informational" units, which contradicts that portions of the universe cannot be distinguished from other portions of it.

The most consistent framing is that the universe merely consists of one state. The universe simply is, and there is no way to distinguish any part of it from any other part of it, because it's all the same informational block. But that's not the logic that D0DN is relying upon to make his argument.

I certainly have not said that and denied it multiple times...unless that whole is everything there is

You cannot distinguish parts of the universe from itself. The universe is all that is, there is no space to move that part into, conceptually or otherwise. The universe is its parts.

Even imagining it is impossible. For if you attempt to imagine a universe not consisting of mind you undercut your own existence.


It requires way less work when the whole is also everything there is. When that happens, the part of A really is identical to A.

You are repeating the same assumption mistake since your first post. I dont think you've quite comprehended it yet tbh.

You guys are fighting hard. Its admirable in a stubborn sort of way.

The basic laws of logic are what I'm referring to. They're required to think.

This is literally nonsensical. You're making the universe out to be all states and an individual state at the same time. The universe isnt an individual state. It cannot be of course, because we can see past states of the universe when we look through a telescope which proves it contains multiple states of itself at once. It is no less the universe at singularity + x than you were less you when you were a baby.

After making a snarky comment I felt like it was just a courtesy to also provide some substantive feedback. But if you prefer snark only I can accommodate that.

I do sort of agree with OrP that it seems like this is a conversational dead end though, so let me ask you something else: assuming for a moment that your argument succeeds, where are you going with this anyway? What prompted these thoughts, what conclusions are you drawing?

No, I meant DoDN ignored it as an idea of a different way to go about this, I did see your reply

I've been trying to get a good answer to this from the beginning. Its clear that his thoughts are not.

Seeing this, I find it more informative to find out about the motivation.

So far, the motivation/implications provided haven't been interesting enough to consider the argument more clearly.

I also don't think the logical approach works well with this kind of philosophy; better communicated through metaphor.

I think the problem is the fallacy described is one of idolization. Idolize the nose of the universe despite it’s face. I don’t recall detecting that. What does supposing a rock is self aware by virtue of the universe matter, if that doesn’t change that it is a rock?

Hey what are the odds ancient healers gave people suffering from anxiety stims and the stims they had available were rocks? Whether or not the rock is self aware, we are self aware and have a relationship with rock with a continuity across time. A very individual- based relationship. Geologist, rock collector, rock whisperer. Whatever.

We have a creative relationship with rocks. It’s satisfying to contemplate I dare say. But it’s not the making of a rock idol.

Though one has to have wonder of ancient gratitude spontaneously for rock cave shelter during a terrifying storm that an imagined ancestor probably faced. We can establish a real tight human/rock relationship. An integral relationship. Rocks must be capable of relationships with self awareness because that is what we have. Rocks may be the part of the universe to be aware of for another part of the universe to have awareness of.

Rocks don’t must need self awareness. Rocks must only exist ( be rocks) capable of being perceived by the sort of awareness that is also aware of self. There is no need to idolize rocks either. Just enjoying the relationship seems well enough.
Ancient cave art and skipping rocks on the pond are the universe.

I would expect nothing less of it. It is, after all, the only consistent framework that one can use with the parameters you've established.

Look at you with your universal reference frame! How cute!

You're probably setting new records for how many different ways someone can say: "I dont understand so it must be wrong!"

Not understanding what is presented is almost never the fault of the audience.

Usually... poorly understood sentiments and poorly or lazily communicated philosophies result in misunderstanding.

I'm not bothered by that. I've been fairly explicit and detailed in my criticisms. Your inability to meaningfully address them tells me everything I need to know about your position.

With my chair analogue argument attempt, I seemed to have shown Aaron's logic to be sound. It was also an attempt to see if a premise is wrong. Obviously a chair can be made of different materials. Rationally, the universe is made of different compounds, which possess different properties, but are part of the universe. Singular.

How about instead attempting to form an argument about how objects are not really inseparable at all - the mistake being made here? You may come to the exact same conclusion.

Sigh. One can imagine a chair without a leg because it's not necessarily true that a chair has legs. For example, a rocking chair doesn't have legs and is still a chair.

One cannot imagine a universe without mind. If you don't believe me, go ahead and try. Except, you can't use your mind to do it. That would be begging the question.

The universe and minds (self-awareness) are not removable from each other. Take out mind, and you don't have a universe. Take out the universe, and you don't have mind. It is necessarily true that the universe is self-aware, because we are the universe and we are self-aware. This proposition cannot be attacked because 1. you need a mind to attack it and 2. attempting to attack it is to concurrently attack the basis of your own existence.

So no, any 'logic' stated in the thread opposing this isn't remotely sound. It's either an honest misunderstanding, or it's willful ignorance. In Aaron's case it amazingly seems to be both.

"imagining a universe without minds" and "imagining a universe without using your mind" are two very different things. The first is easy, cosmologists do it all the time. The second is impossible, as you say.

They are equivalent. Minds are things, in the universe, used to imagine. A universe without mind cannot be imagined, because your mind is part of the universe (without which the universe wouldn't be the universe!) and you assume as much before you even start imagining. Thus the universe cannot be separated from your mind, and the dual nature of truth is that the mind cant be separated from the universe. The universe would cease to be the universe without your mind (or more generally, mind).

Now you can pretend to do it, but it requires you to reason using the very assumption you're intending to disprove. It might be 'possible' in that sense, but its ultimately false.

It's similar to trying to argue that reasoning can be done without logic or language. You're free to try, of course, but in order to do so you necessarily must use both logic and language, and so you clip your own wings before you're done your takeoff roll.

One of the reasons paradoxes in understanding arise at the base level of physics is precisely because cosmologists both include and disinclude mind at the same time.

They are clearly not equivalent. In the first sentence "without minds" modifies the noun "universe". In the second it modifies the verb "imagine". The two sentences mean different things, and you're just equivocating between them. I can't really think of a plainer demonstration, maybe OrP can. Or perhaps you deny that we can imagine counterfactuals?

By the way, have you been reading the Upanishads or something? This sounds like a half-baked version of some of my favorites.

To attempt to imagine a universe without mind requires both a universe with minds and a mind. So imagining a universe without a mind (or more generally, mind) is just as impossible as imagining anything without using a mind. They are linguistically equivalent statements.

Cosmologists have not been doing it all the time. They have been assuming (without stating it or even knowing it in most cases) the universe and mind are inseparable since they started being cosmologists. It's impossible to do anything but assume it.

And no to the Upanishads. Never read them.

You seem to be missing the point that the imagined universe is not the actual universe. You're basically arguing that we're incapable of imagining things which don't exist, which is false. (And you're still equivocating but we've covered that).

Imaginary universes are real; they are part of the universe. They are equivalent insofar that they both require mind. Any universe imagined without a mind cannot exist without a mind.

Imagined things do exist, of course.

Imagine:Mind::Imagining Universes:Universes with mind(s)

1)Imagining is a function of the mind
2)Imagining a universe is the function of only a universe with minds
3)Imagining is a function of the universe