Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Pettytalk

Why is there existence, rather than nothing?

236 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alchopwn
9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why would it be more than the programmed set of responses outlined in the attention schema theory? What suggests "more"?

Well that's easy.  AST doesn't offer a strong explanation of the internal dynamics of thought and reflection.  In short, AST offers no real explanation of the strongly introverted person and why they end up being statistically more intelligent than the extrovert.  Now consider... if the bulk of the information we receive is from external sources and stimuli, what is the evolutionary advantage to spending time by yourself in an environment where you are under-stimulated?  And what possible evolutionary advantage could there be to being alone with your thoughts, when a large portion of human success is due to the fact we are social animals? In fact I would be inclined to tweak the nose of the AST theorists, given they are likely to have a strongly introvert element to their personalities, given they are academics, and say that the theory presented goes against their own experience of consciousness, not to mention a good deal of psychological evidence.  In short, I think the internal life of humanity is simply not adequately addressed by AST, and it is probably the most important indicator of true consciousness, as opposed to the  animalistic responses of the human who is merely following their social instincts and partying (Can you sense the resentful subtext of what my PhD cost me?).

In its present form AST is a reductionist theory, which is not to say that it doesn't offer some insights, but in its present form, it doesn't answer enough.  I am certainly not the only person to be offering criticism either; there are plenty of others who see deficiencies in its present form.  This is healthy tho, as this critcism will lead to a better approach.  I personally don't think that AST deserves to be regarded as a "theory" yet, as that is too high a scientific accolade for such an untested approach, that fails to explain so very much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
jypsijemini
19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

"Why" is a silly question.

I've got you blocked so I wouldn't waste your time and energy replying to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, jypsijemini said:

I've got you blocked so I wouldn't waste your time and energy replying to me.

Great reply. :sleepy:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
21 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Well that's easy.  AST doesn't offer a strong explanation of the internal dynamics of thought and reflection.  In short, AST offers no real explanation of the strongly introverted person and why they end up being statistically more intelligent than the extrovert.  Now consider... if the bulk of the information we receive is from external sources and stimuli, what is the evolutionary advantage to spending time by yourself in an environment where you are under-stimulated?  And what possible evolutionary advantage could there be to being alone with your thoughts, when a large portion of human success is due to the fact we are social animals? In fact I would be inclined to tweak the nose of the AST theorists, given they are likely to have a strongly introvert element to their personalities, given they are academics, and say that the theory presented goes against their own experience of consciousness, not to mention a good deal of psychological evidence.  In short, I think the internal life of humanity is simply not adequately addressed by AST, and it is probably the most important indicator of true consciousness, as opposed to the  animalistic responses of the human who is merely following their social instincts and partying (Can you sense the resentful subtext of what my PhD cost me?).

Your talking about conditions that are reflected in brain structure aren't you? There's a definite difference in brain pattern and structure with savants. Physical size is sometimes larger, but notably the real differences are chemical, regional and compartmental brain volumes, N-acetyl aspartate, choline, creatine, glutamate and γ-aminobutyric acid concentrations, fractional anisotropy values, and white matter bundle volumes as well as axial, radial, and mean diffusivities. All are all noted aspects that differ from a standard brain. 

Same with introverts and extroverts. There's a marked difference in dopamine production.

I personally think your jumping the gun there. There's many areas to he expanded upon sure, but what has been proposed is pretty solid. I don't see that behavioral differences actually lessens the impact of the breakthrough. I don't know of a better explanation with as much supported theory explaining consiouness do you? 

In any case, I don't find the statement that consiouness is a complete mystery to science an accurate statement, do you? 

Quote

In its present form AST is a reductionist theory, which is not to say that it doesn't offer some insights, but in its present form, it doesn't answer enough.  I am certainly not the only person to be offering criticism either; there are plenty of others who see deficiencies in its present form.  This is healthy tho, as this critcism will lead to a better approach.  I personally don't think that AST deserves to be regarded as a "theory" yet, as that is too high a scientific accolade for such an untested approach, that fails to explain so very much.

It's got more work to do, even Graziano would admit to that. He has a follow up paper on emotional schemas too. I can't see how it's not a great scientific theory explains how consiouness is constructed. It will be expanded upon as all good theories are, but that's not a hole. Darwin's Origin of the Species has been expanded upon greatly, but it doesn't mean the initial theories were incorrect, just incomplete. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
On 1/21/2020 at 3:39 AM, jypsijemini said:

We have no idea why we exist.

"Why" is the only thing that cant be answered. It's mostly the "How", never the why. Even when we can't fully trust our senses and even our memory, and yet we "know" what is and isn't. 

We as a species are not as intelligent as we think. 

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
22 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Same with introverts and extroverts. There's a marked difference in dopamine production.

True, but that is also a reductionist answer.  Do you really think that all brains are really the same save for their chemical loading?  Dopamine production aside, the lived experience of an introvert and an extrovert lead to very different perspectives on the world.

22 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I personally think your jumping the gun there. There's many areas to he expanded upon sure, but what has been proposed is pretty solid. I don't see that behavioral differences actually lessens the impact of the breakthrough. I don't know of a better explanation with as much supported theory explaining consiouness do you? 

Personally, I don't see it as a breakthrough.  I see it as a bit of a cop-out.  With all the complexity of the neural structure of the brain, and clear evidence from subtraction studies that points us in very interesting directions, we instead get this very non-specific approach, covering info that can be inferred from the work of dinosaurs like Freud, and we are expected to get excited about it and treat it as a scientific theory?  Nope.  Not good enough.  I want a specific location or set of locations in the brain, and an identifiable process thanks, not this ancient truism posing as a theory.  It was interesting back in 1910 but it isn't interesting now.

23 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I personally think your jumping the gun there. There's many areas to he expanded upon sure, but what has been proposed is pretty solid. I don't see that behavioral differences actually lessens the impact of the breakthrough. I don't know of a better explanation with as much supported theory explaining consiouness do you?

Here are a few to consider: Models of Consciousness.  As to the most supported, let's not jump the gun.  Plenty of ideas that get too much support early on wind up falling down.

23 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 In any case, I don't find the statement that consiouness is a complete mystery to science an accurate statement, do you? 

Here we can certainly agree.  To say that we know nothing about consciousness is as false as saying we have the full picture about how consciousness operates.  It is a very big "jigsaw puzzle"., but I am confident that while one person cannot understand the brain, many people working in concert certainly will eventually be able to.

23 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It's got more work to do, even Graziano would admit to that. He has a follow up paper on emotional schemas too. I can't see how it's not a great scientific theory explains how consiouness is constructed. It will be expanded upon as all good theories are, but that's not a hole. Darwin's Origin of the Species has been expanded upon greatly, but it doesn't mean the initial theories were incorrect, just incomplete. 

Comparing AST to the ToEv is hubristic in the extreme.

My original cricitism of AST was that it offers no explanation or insight into the lived experience of the internal life of humans that is their actual experience of consciousness.  It is this internal conversation that forms the reasoning process and allows for the organization of our thoughts and creates intelligence by allowing us to filter emotion and organize information.  Without an explanation of the actual lived portion of consciousness, all one winds up with is a reductionist answer that doesn't even really explain animal consciousness, let alone human consciousness.  There is so much more to consciousness than mere awareness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abraxasdisciple

Maybe this was already mentioned but isn't it just because they are co-dependent.

Existence cannot be existence without non-existence and non-existence cannot non-exist without existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbondo
On 7/31/2019 at 3:52 PM, spartan max2 said:

It one of the great mind boggling questions.

Just like is the universe endless or does it end? Both are impossible to imagine. Is there an endless amount of nonethingness that an object could float in? Lol

I doubt it's a concept humans can really comprehend 

We also assume it's expanding. What if there's a barrier out there somewhere and when expansion hit it, it begins to implode. Since it's so far away, we have no idea that this implosion is happening...yet...Scientists claim that there is no edge to the universe and that if you traveled out looking for the edge, you'd never get there. I wonder, what if there was an edge and there was a galaxy at said edge? What if there was a planet with intelligent life there and they could look out and see some sort of transition. What would it look like? There are a million questions from us being in a simulation, to the OP of something from nothing. When I was a kid, I used to ask other kids: "If there were nothing, what would nothing be?" Those who could even think it thru would often say, the mere thought "terrified" them. It's especially impactful when you are walking outside at night in a very secluded place, looking up at the sky. I grew up in a very small rural town that was surrounded by national forest. These kinds of things came to mind a lot. I often wished I were like those who just scoffed and never cared. When you care, it can drive you out of your mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
v03qxz

If you think about it... if nothing was there, how could something descend from that nothing? There would be nothing there for that 'something' to descend from. That 'something' would have no ancestor. That 'something' would just (irrationally) appear on its own.

This is one reason I'm a creationist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
1 hour ago, v03qxz said:

If you think about it... if nothing was there, how could something descend from that nothing? There would be nothing there for that 'something' to descend from. That 'something' would have no ancestor. That 'something' would just (irrationally) appear on its own.

By Nothing (Nothingness) is meant a non-material, negative level on which there are no positive elements of life (mind-thinking, feelings, desires, personality, form) and all being is immersed in a trance of unconscious being of the One from which the entire positive universe is manifested.
This dark and gloomy part of God the Absolute is experienced as death for the person and the mind, nevertheless, the eternal spirit of man is heated even there.
God strikes into this unconscious Chaos (translated as yawn) and he manifests the universe and conscious being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fred_mc

I believe in order from chaos, that the foundation for everything was chaos rather than nothingness. From chaos, there is a probability that anything can happen if you just wait long enough, even a universe like ours, where humans can emerge. Yes, it may take a very long time, not millions or billions of years but a 1 followed by so many zeros that it would seem infinite to us number of years. However, anything will eventually happen from chaos if you just wait long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.