The fault in Aquinas' First Way

[Bahman]

Actually it isn’t clear to me either, whether I’m in any way the cause of the world around me, or whether my consciousness is merely an effect like everything else. Is consciousness simply an emergent phenomenon and I can take the “rationality” part of my previous post and throw it out the window. Is reality completely deterministic? Or am I living in what some theorists refer to as an observer created reality, in which I do have some influence? Do I have at least some free will? How can I tell?

In what seems to be a spooky coincidence scientists in just the last couple of days have reported the outcome of an experiment that seems to show that the future affects the past.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209083011.htm

Now there had already been indications that this was true, from the “Delayed choice quantum eraser” experiments. But this experiment seems to quantify the effect. In a nutshell, if I understand the experiment correctly, in predicting the outcome of a system, you have to consider both its evolution forward through time, and its evolution backward through time. In other words the future affects the past. By considering the system’s evolution in both directions you can increase the odds of making an accurate prediction from 50%, to 90%. The question then becomes, what accounts for that other 10%.

But what does this mean for my understanding that the world is the product of a solipsistic consciousness? One which is created by a combination of cause and effect, and rationality. Well it seems to support it very, very well. The reason that reality makes sense, and the reason that I can create new words and languages seemingly out of nowhwere, is precisely because the future affects the past. When I encounter a new situation, say like someone speaking a language that I’ve never heard before, my consciousness creates every possible way of filling in the gaps in my knowledge. It creates every conceivable form of this new language, completely on the fly. But many of these new languages would be absolutely untenable. They would make no logical sense. They’d be gibberish. But this is where the influence of the future comes in. The future weeds out all the possible languages that aren’t tenable, because they ultimately lead to paradoxes or contradictions. In other words, what my consciousness creates now, must not only be consistent with what it has created in the past, but it must also be consistent with what it will create in the future. Because cause and effect works in both directions. In this manner consciousness creates a reality that seems to make absolutely perfect sense. Because any realities that don’t make sense get weeded out by the influence of the future.

But this is still basically cause and effect. All that we’ve done is added the effect that the future has on the now, to the effect that the past has on the now. However, as the experiment indicates, this only accounts for 90% of the outcomes. What then accounts for the other 10%? I would submit that the other 10% is me. Cause and effect determines 90% of what is, and I determine the other 10%. I have free will.

But this still doesn’t answer the ultimate question, what caused me? What was the first cause? As a solipsist it’s this one unanswerable question that makes the world look the way it does. Consciousness is attempting to explain its existence, and it’s using God, and religion, and science and any other possible means to do so. Yet it can’t do it. Not now, and not in the future. So the world that I see around me is merely a reflection of the struggle that’s going on within my own consciousness. The world is a reflection of me. My consciousness is tormented by a question that it can’t resolve, and the world that I see around me is the result.

That’s the solipsistic perspective, the world is the way it is, because of me.

But now there’s a more intriguing question. Was the timing of this experiment showing the influence of the future on the past, merely a coincidence, or is it a further example of my own consciousness creating answers as needed. Is it part of the 90%, or part of the 10%?

Physical reality is manifestation of consciousness. How could you possibly doubt yourself?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Actually it isn’t clear to me either, whether I’m in any way the cause of the world around me, or whether my consciousness is merely an effect like everything else. Is consciousness simply an emergent phenomenon and I can take the “rationality” part of my previous post and throw it out the window. Is reality completely deterministic? Or am I living in what some theorists refer to as an observer created reality, in which I do have some influence? Do I have at least some free will? How can I tell?

In what seems to be a spooky coincidence scientists in just the last couple of days have reported the outcome of an experiment that seems to show that the future affects the past.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209083011.htm

Now there had already been indications that this was true, from the “Delayed choice quantum eraser” experiments. But this experiment seems to quantify the effect. In a nutshell, if I understand the experiment correctly, in predicting the outcome of a system, you have to consider both its evolution forward through time, and its evolution backward through time. In other words the future affects the past. By considering the system’s evolution in both directions you can increase the odds of making an accurate prediction from 50%, to 90%. The question then becomes, what accounts for that other 10%.

But what does this mean for my understanding that the world is the product of a solipsistic consciousness? One which is created by a combination of cause and effect, and rationality. Well it seems to support it very, very well. The reason that reality makes sense, and the reason that I can create new words and languages seemingly out of nowhwere, is precisely because the future affects the past. When I encounter a new situation, say like someone speaking a language that I’ve never heard before, my consciousness creates every possible way of filling in the gaps in my knowledge. It creates every conceivable form of this new language, completely on the fly. But many of these new languages would be absolutely untenable. They would make no logical sense. They’d be gibberish. But this is where the influence of the future comes in. The future weeds out all the possible languages that aren’t tenable, because they ultimately lead to paradoxes or contradictions. In other words, what my consciousness creates now, must not only be consistent with what it has created in the past, but it must also be consistent with what it will create in the future. Because cause and effect works in both directions. In this manner consciousness creates a reality that seems to make absolutely perfect sense. Because any realities that don’t make sense get weeded out by the influence of the future.

But this is still basically cause and effect. All that we’ve done is added the effect that the future has on the now, to the effect that the past has on the now. However, as the experiment indicates, this only accounts for 90% of the outcomes. What then accounts for the other 10%? I would submit that the other 10% is me. Cause and effect determines 90% of what is, and I determine the other 10%. I have free will.

But this still doesn’t answer the ultimate question, what caused me? What was the first cause? As a solipsist it’s this one unanswerable question that makes the world look the way it does. Consciousness is attempting to explain its existence, and it’s using God, and religion, and science and any other possible means to do so. Yet it can’t do it. Not now, and not in the future. So the world that I see around me is merely a reflection of the struggle that’s going on within my own consciousness. The world is a reflection of me. My consciousness is tormented by a question that it can’t resolve, and the world that I see around me is the result.

That’s the solipsistic perspective, the world is the way it is, because of me.

But now there’s a more intriguing question. Was the timing of this experiment showing the influence of the future on the past, merely a coincidence, or is it a further example of my own consciousness creating answers as needed. Is it part of the 90%, or part of the 10%?

Hi Partinobodycula:

When we started this monologue (your monologue), I told you that Descartes used doubt as a method to get rid of prejudices. This was extremely important to him because different doctrines proliferated in his time. In other words, there was a great heterogeneity among the existing discourses. I find it interesting to look at his intellectual activity as an effort to eliminate from his mind all those elements of discourse that introduced heterogeneity. And his principal criterium to determine which pieces of discourse were acceptable, was clarity and distinction. Besides this, one of the rules he adopted for analysis was this: Divide complex problems into simple ones, and solve each one of these separately.

I have the impression that you are exactly on the opposite side with respect to Descartes: You avoid simple problems, and purposely look for heterogeneous discourses. You like confusion, not clarity. You don’t want to solve any problem. You like to create them!

Something is similar between you and Descartes though. His solipsism was but a fiction. So is yours. You cannot avoid thinking about the power of the others (different kind of powers). You know you are subject to that power, and you act accordingly. That attitude, Partinobodycula, is everything you want, except doubt.

What you have said in your last post is just this: “I don’t know”; which might be fair, after all. The rest was a subterfuge.

I kindly ask you to go back to the questions that you left unanswered. Believe me: the more you say, the more confusing it becomes. Look for simplicity and sobriety.

I wait for your answers.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

I kindly ask you to go back to the questions that you left unanswered.

As I noted earlier, you had asked too many questions. If you have a specific question in mind please restate it, and I’ll gladly answer it.

That’s about all that I can do. If you have a problem with solipsism then please ask me a question, and I’ll answer it.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

As I noted earlier, you had asked too many questions. If you have a specific question in mind please restate it, and I’ll gladly answer it.

That’s about all that I can do. If you have a problem with solipsism then please ask me a question, and I’ll answer it.

Dear Partinobodycula:

You say that concepts are your building blocks to represent your surroundings to yourself. You use them continuously. Please, tell me which are those fundamental building blocks, and show me how you use them to build, for example, the tenderness of a mother (surely there is a tender mother in your surroundings, isn’t there?)

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

You say that concepts are your building blocks to represent your surroundings to yourself. You use them continuously. Please, tell me which are those fundamental building blocks, and show me how you use them to build, for example, the tenderness of a mother (surely there is a tender mother in your surroundings, isn’t there?)

To begin with the concepts that I use to build the tenderness of a mother are the exact same ones that you use. There’s absolutely no difference whatsoever. I can imagine a tender, loving mother just as easily as you can. To which you could ask, but where did those concepts come from? I would simply point out that I could ask you the exact same question, and our answers would be the same. Because your concept of a mother either evolved over billions of years, or was created whole and complete. Those are your choices. Oddly enough, those are my choices as well. Either the concept of a mother evolved, or it was given whole and complete.

But in either case there’s no way to tell whether the world around me is real or not. It would look exactly the same either way. In the end I suppose, life serves to judge the content of our character, whether everything is real or not.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

To begin with the concepts that I use to build the tenderness of a mother are the exact same ones that you use. There’s absolutely no difference whatsoever. I can imagine a tender, loving mother just as easily as you can. To which you could ask, but where did those concepts come from? I would simply point out that I could ask you the exact same question, and our answers would be the same. Because your concept of a mother either evolved over billions of years, or was created whole and complete. Those are your choices. Oddly enough, those are my choices as well. Either the concept of a mother evolved, or it was given whole and complete.

But in either case there’s no way to tell whether the world around me is real or not. It would look exactly the same either way. In the end I suppose, life serves to judge the content of our character, whether everything is real or not.

Dear Partinobodycula:

You cannot answer like that, unless you are absolutely sure that I exist as you exist (without any “doubt”). I am not asking “where did those concepts come from?” yet, because I need to know them first. You need to follow a good order.

Please, try to focus on the question I asked.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

You cannot answer like that, unless you are absolutely sure that I exist as you exist (without any “doubt”). I am not asking “where did those concepts come from?” yet, because I need to know them first.

Not only can I answer like that, but I HAVE to answer like that. For one very obvious reason, it’s the only possible answer!!! Either the world around me evolved, or it was created whole and complete. If you disagree with the answer then point out some other possible explanation.

If you want to know what my concepts are, then they’re exactly the same as your concepts. The physical world is built on the concepts of shape, and color, and texture, and motion. But in fact, all of these things are just patterns of information, and this is true whether consciousness exists in a real physical brain or not. Your brain has only a concept of the color green, because it’s never actually seen the color green. All that it has ever “seen” is the pattern of information that represents the color green. But by using such patterns of information, the brain constructs a visual representation of what it believes to be an external world. But the brain has no way of knowing whether that information has a real objective source outside of itself or not. To the brain it’s just information. Information which could just as easily have come to it through the Matrix, as through an actual outside world. Consciousness is simply patterns of information, and those patterns of information produce concepts, and those concepts create the world.

So in truth we’re not debating the nature of what we perceive. It’s an illusion created by consciousness using patterns of information. The debate isn’t about its nature, it’s only about its source. Did the universe, with all of its stars and galaxies truly give rise to me, or was it I who gave rise to it? Could it be that simple? That an immaterial consciousness gave rise to an immaterial world.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Not only can I answer like that, but I HAVE to answer like that. For one very obvious reason, it’s the only possible answer!!! Either the world around me evolved, or it was created whole and complete. If you disagree with the answer then point out some other possible explanation.

If you want to know what my concepts are, then they’re exactly the same as your concepts. The physical world is built on the concepts of shape, and color, and texture, and motion. But in fact, all of these things are just patterns of information, and this is true whether consciousness exists in a real physical brain or not. Your brain has only a concept of the color green, because it’s never actually seen the color green. All that it has ever “seen” is the pattern of information that represents the color green. But by using such patterns of information, the brain constructs a visual representation of what it believes to be an external world. But the brain has no way of knowing whether that information has a real objective source outside of itself or not. To the brain it’s just information. Information which could just as easily have come to it through the Matrix, as through an actual outside world. Consciousness is simply patterns of information, and those patterns of information produce concepts, and those concepts create the world.

So in truth we’re not debating the nature of what we perceive. It’s an illusion created by consciousness using patterns of information. The debate isn’t about its nature, it’s only about its source. Did the universe, with all of its stars and galaxies truly give rise to me, or was it I who gave rise to it? Could it be that simple? That an immaterial consciousness gave rise to an immaterial world.

Do I exist as you exist, Partinobodycula?

JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

Do I exist as you exist, Partinobodycula?

Unfortunately, you’ll always remain an enigma to me. Such is the fate of the conscious mind, to be alone. But that doesn’t make you less valuable to me, or less precious, it makes you immeasurably so. For without you what am I?

And if the world exists only in my mind, then all of the sins, and all of the suffering, fall on me. For I am the cause. If God is to judge anyone, it’s me. And so there’s no man, and no sin, that I cannot forgive. For in doing so, I may simply be forgiving myself.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Unfortunately, you’ll always remain an enigma to me. Such is the fate of the conscious mind, to be alone. But that doesn’t make you less valuable to me, or less precious, it makes you immeasurably so. For without you what am I?

And if the world exists only in my mind, then all of the sins, and all of the suffering, fall on me. For I am the cause. If God is to judge anyone, it’s me. And so there’s no man, and no sin, that I cannot forgive. For in doing so, I may simply be forgiving myself.

You are a nice person, Partinobodycula; but I have to insist, for I did not ask you what am I to you nor what do you think of yourself, but “do I exist as you exist?”

Can you please respond?

To make it easy for you, here you have some options:

A) Yes
B) No
C) I doubt it.

Please, proceed.

Best regards
Juan Florencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

“do I exist as you exist?”

A) Yes
B) No
C) I doubt it.

B) No

 

[JuanFlorencio]

B) No

Hi Partinobodycul!:

Do I have certain mode of existence?

Again, let me assist you with possible answers, while you acquire the habit of responding properly:

a) Yes
b) No
c) I don’t know

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

Do I have certain mode of existence?

a) Yes
b) No
c) I don’t know

a) Yes

 

[JuanFlorencio]

a) Yes

What are the manifestations of your existence mode? And I mean of course the ways in which your existence is manifest to yourself, because it is supposed that you are the only existing mind.

The answer might be a list that, I assume, will include manifestations such like thoughts, doubts, faith; joy, sadness; anguish, hope; awe, surprise, wonder; hunger, thirst; ira, lust, pride…, etcetera.

Please, do your list and let me know.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

What are the manifestations of your existence mode? And I mean of course the ways in which your existence is manifest to yourself,

Believe it or not I’m not quite clear on what the question is. So I’m going to give multiple answers, and you can pick the appropriate one.

If the question is simply, what makes my existence self-apparent, then the list is extremely short:

I think.

If the question is, what attributes do I ascribe to myself, then your proposed list, although nowhere near exhaustive, will serve the purpose quite well.

thoughts, doubts, faith; joy, sadness; anguish, hope; awe, surprise, wonder; hunger, thirst; ire, lust, pride…, et cetera.

If the question is, how does my existence manifest itself. Or to use the dictionary definition, how does my existence make itself “evident or certain by showing or displaying” then the list is again quite short:

Physical reality.

If you find this answer inadequate, please let me know, and I’ll attempt to clarify.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Believe it or not I’m not quite clear on what the question is. So I’m going to give multiple answers, and you can pick the appropriate one.

If the question is simply, what makes my existence self-apparent, then the list is extremely short:

I think.

If the question is, what attributes do I ascribe to myself, then your proposed list, although nowhere near exhaustive, will serve the purpose quite well.If the question is, how does my existence manifest itself. Or to use the dictionary definition, how does my existence make itself “evident or certain by showing or displaying” then the list is again quite short:

Physical reality.

If you find this answer inadequate, please let me know, and I’ll attempt to clarify.

Oh, any one of them will do!

So, you think. Fine! That is the way in which your existence becomes apparent!

And I? Do I think, Partinobodycula? In other words, does my mode of existence include thought processes?

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

And I? Do I think, Partinobodycula? In other words, does my mode of existence include thought processes?

When I say, I think, therefore I am, this is an attribution that I can only apply to myself. I can’t extend the argument to your existence as well. As tempting as it may be to believe that you think, and love, and hope, and doubt, just as assuredly as I do, I can never attain a perspective from which to be certain. Our modes of existence therefore are always going to be different. As far as I can ever know, you exist only in so much as you exist in me. And in what is perhaps the most tragic truth of all, I am loved only in so much as I am loved by you.

Do I hope that you think, and dream, and love, and hope, and wonder? Ah, most assuredly I do! But then again, I hope that the only one suffering, is me.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

When I say, I think, therefore I am, this is an attribution that I can only apply to myself. I can’t extend the argument to your existence as well. As tempting as it may be to believe that you think, and love, and hope, and doubt, just as assuredly as I do, I can never attain a perspective from which to be certain. Our modes of existence therefore are always going to be different. As far as I can ever know, you exist only in so much as you exist in me. And in what is perhaps the most tragic truth of all, I am loved only in so much as I am loved by you.

Do I hope that you think, and dream, and love, and hope, and wonder? Ah, most assuredly I do! But then again, I hope that the only one suffering, is me.

Do I have concepts, Partinobodycula?

 

[Partinobodycula]

Do I have concepts, Partinobodycula?

I don’t know, but if you do, then you understand the concept of solipsism, and you know that what I’m telling you is true. That you can never be certain. And you understand that life is at once both an amazingly precious thing, and an amazingly tragic thing. For through it you know the concepts of hope, and faith, and love, but also the concepts of despair, and suffering, and indifference. And you understand that the virtues of one, are born from the pains of the other. So to believe that you have the concept of compassion, is to believe that others have suffered in order to give it to you.

You can believe that God created a world of pain, and suffering, and cruelty. Or you can believe that God simply created you. That He gave you life, with all of its inequities, that you might know the concepts of love, and hope, and faith. But in His mercy, the only one suffering, may be you. And in spite of it all, the character of your life, is determined not by its circumstances, but by the manner in which you choose to endure them.

In the end I must admit that I don’t know whether you have concepts or not. I don’t know if you’re real. But what I do know, is just how insignificant I would be without you.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I don’t know, but if you do, then you understand the concept of solipsism, and you know that what I’m telling you is true. That you can never be certain. And you understand that life is at once both an amazingly precious thing, and an amazingly tragic thing. For through it you know the concepts of hope, and faith, and love, but also the concepts of despair, and suffering, and indifference. And you understand that the virtues of one, are born from the pains of the other. So to believe that you have the concept of compassion, is to believe that others have suffered in order to give it to you.

You can believe that God created a world of pain, and suffering, and cruelty. Or you can believe that God simply created you. That He gave you life, with all of its inequities, that you might know the concepts of love, and hope, and faith. But in His mercy, the only one suffering, may be you. And in spite of it all, the character of your life, is determined not by its circumstances, but by the manner in which you choose to endure them.

In the end I must admit that I don’t know whether you have concepts or not. I don’t know if you’re real. But what I do know, is just how insignificant I would be without you.

Oh, yeah, I know how miserable you would be without me!, but it is not relevant for our current discussion. I don’t think you are trying to touch my heart; are you? This is the kind of subterfuges that you continuously use to protect yourself . And this reveals that you don’t have any doubt concerning my existence. But…

You don’t know? What would you need to know it? What is missing?

Best regards
JuanFlorencio