Oh yeah, sorry, I see what you mean.

I'm not sure I understand why the properties of humans matter more than the properties of everything else we know when it comes to inference, though.

I think it's takes a leap to make conclude the way OP did. Just because local or peripheral elements of the universe contains potential for certain reactions or developments (like self awareness) I don't think you can infer that the structure of the universe (apart from the obvious fact that the universe IS self aware, only through human beings).

As far as I can tell, everyone but OP feels that way. There hasn't been much (any?) support for his position and it has been criticized from many different angles.

Your argument is as follows

p1) if a subset or part of a whole is not self aware, then the whole cannot be self aware.
p2) a rock is not self aware
p3) a rock is a part or subset of the universe
therefore
c) the universe is not self aware

This is what you are arguing with your statement "A rock isn't self aware, so then the universe can't be either, can it?"


but if I plug in some different values, I get an incorrect conclusion

p1) if a subset or part of a whole is not self aware, then the whole cannot be self aware.
p2) a leg is not self aware
p3) a leg is a part or subset of a person
therefore
c) a person is not self aware

c follows from p1,p2, and p3. But c is false( unless you believe that people are not self aware). Therefore your argument is false.

Yes, I understand your point.

However, I don't think it's equal, because our brain, like a rock or a tree, are isolated materialities in the universe. And as there are both entities and material things that are self aware and some that aren't, you can't use the inference like OP to conclude that the self awareness part is more representative of the universe than the not part, and the universe (seen as one entity) CANNOT be both aware and not aware, therefore OP's example doesn't hold because then the rock experiment is as determinative for the rest of the universe as the human awareness inference would be.

You can't compare it to the leg, because a leg has nothing to do with what makes us a person. My leg is not self aware, my leg has nothing to do with awareness. The "person" is not both their leg and their mind, they are only their mind, and they have control over their leg, but the leg is not what makes them a person or self aware and is in this sense completely irrelevant to self awareness or being-a-person, therefore you cannot consider the leg as part of a person the same way you can consider a rock part of the universe.

Apologies if it is a little messy.

Edit: the universe is made up of non-self aware, material things. The "person" is made up of abstract, non-material processes, therefore the leg comparison is irrelevant because a leg has nothing to do with a person.

I dont think you do.

Its equal because your argument is about parts of a whole.
A rock is part of the universe
A leg is part of a person





a person is only their mind? Really? what does that mean?

I get it, this is the only way that your argument holds, if you claim that a leg isnt part of a person. I reject that claim too.

Person as in a self aware entity is the mind, yes. We can discuss social relations, hair, toes, moral values and sexual preferences as part of what makes us a person as well, but then it is no longer a matter of self awareness or not. We could be self aware persons even if we are born without legs or eyes, the universe cannot be the universe without material matter. And the leg does not make up human self awareness the same way rocks and other material things make up the universe. You could make the argument with the brain, but it is still not the static brain that makes us self aware.


A rock is as much a material part of the universe as a human being is, a leg is not as much a part of self awareness (in fact it plays no part at all) as the mind is.

what does this mean, and how do you know?

Reductionism, as commonly understood, is an idea of knowledge (epistemology); of what and how things can be known. Less commonly understood, it is also an idea about ontology - about what things exist and what it means to exist.

As an idea about knowledge, reductionists believe that most things can be known about the universe by reducing our explanations down to the language about the most fundamental components of the universe (e.g. quarks, atoms and the study of physics).

Unfortunately, it just so happens that explaining psychological phenomena, such as depression for example, is a lot easier and more useful in the language of psychology, as opposed to physics.

An explanation should always be as simple as possible.

Explaning concepts in chemistry, psychology and social dynamics using the language of physics achieves the opposite; provides a more complex explanation - unnecessarily.

Reductionism, as an idea in the field of knowledge (epistemology), as such, is a failure.

As an idea in ontology, however, reductionism has value. Although psychological concepts like depression are better understood and explained in the language of psychology, psychology nevertheless depends on chemistry and ultimately, physics. Psychology, as such, cannot be usefully understood in the language of physics... but is nevertheless dependent on physics.

This subtle but important distinction is pertinent to much of the confusion in this thread.

When we talk about the properties of the universe we're talking ontology, not epistemology. Yes the universe has conscious properties which can be inferred to exist. Yes these properties exist within the universe. This doesn't mean that the universe knows about them or that it can know about them. Two very different claims.

You think awareness and self awareness is an illusion? Wew. I suppose the awareness that it's an illusion is also an illusion? Double wew.

The sum of its parts? The universe is the thing which contains all the objects it contains.



An astoundingly silly thing to say.

Yet the material person with it integrated is writing an intelligible post to someone else material, also with it integrated. How curious.

Yes and you're part of what the universe is. So the universe is not purely mechanical. Its self aware. In you.


1. How do you know? It's an open question.
2. You are the universe being self aware and aware of the rock, so the universe is aware of the rock via you.


But it does. You exist. I exist. Making inferences depends on consciousness. The fact that the universe, in us, makes inferences proves that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

Otherwise whence comes it?

You're talking about both, whether or not you realize it. For there would be neither without mind, and mind is a property of the universe, as you are part of the universe.

The universe knows itself to the extent that you interact with it, because you know yourself.

It can't be criticized. Every time you try and attack the claim that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe you prove the claim true by using consciousness to do it...which is both in and part of the universe.

If consciousness isnt a fundamental aspect of the universe, whence comes your consciousness?

If you instead claim that consciousness isnt real, by what mechanism other than consciousness are you making sense of that claim?

How does using consciousness prove that its a fundamental aspect of the universe?

Circular reasoning

Because we are part of what it means to be the universe. We are a fundamental aspect of the universe and we are material consciousness. So something about the universe both is (us), and gives rise to that which is, material consciousness.

Unless of course you have a different explanation for where consciousness comes from/is (not the universe)?

LOL -- Perhaps the ultimate level of abject ignorance. I think it's time to crown a new king.

It's just your profound inability to understand the nature of necessary truth, which is really surprising for a supposed mathematician.

It confirms two of the first conclusions I made about you. You like to argue, and you do it badly.

And what is your understanding of a "necessary truth" and how does one establish its necessity? We can do this with mathematical definitions, but when you start throwing around words like "consciousness" you've entered into a completely separate realm.

The first is true. The second is more of a reflection of your inability to discern what is and what is not an argument. You're the one who has utterly failed to make a single salient point in this entire thread. Your position has mostly been reduced to you repeating yourself and yelling at clouds.

As I said earlier, I'm mostly here just to mock. That I may decide to make cogent statements on occasion is just on the basis of me deciding to arbitrarily do that.

We've already been over this. Logical necessity is that which to assert its opposite is to undermine logic itself.



That would require one example of cogency on your part to be true. I think at this point you're more likely to be accidentally cogent than decisionally so.

This is not what most people who work with "necessary truths" mean when they use the term.

You're free to imagine me however you wish, just as you are free to imagine yourself and the universe however you wish.

I understand you are unfamiliar with these concepts. You don't need to reiterate it.



Except a universe where I don't exist, of course.

The most common definition of logical necessity today is as a counterfactual claim, that if p is logically necessary, then p is true in all possible worlds.

You understand it about as well as you understand topology.

So you're suggesting that such a thing is possible?

The universe has no intentionality or understanding, much like an ecosystem has no intentionality or understanding.

We've already proven this is false. Part of the universe is trivially proven to have intentionality and understanding---you.

Geesh. We're talking about the topological properties of connectedness and continuity here Aaron, not the study of toruses and moebius strips (explicitly).



No, Aaron. Writing things down doesn't imply they are possible. See: a square circle.

In other words, that ~p is impossible.

When applied to logic, p v ~p cannot be true and false. To claim p = ~p is to claim the law of logic is false. It's to undermine logic.

In more words yet still, when imagining possible universes, it is logically impossible to imagine a universe not containing yourself, because your imagination of any and all universes is totally dependent on the real existence of you and your imagination.