As Above, So Below - As Within, So Without - As If, So What?

Modern science (AKA Materialist Reductionism) holds to the Newtonian/Aristotelian view of the universe as consisting of nothing more that matter, and the interactions between physical quanta.

In modern terms this is expressed in the debate of the Mind Body Problem - the origin of Consciousness.

For Scientists (Booooooooooo Hssss Hssssss) believe that consciousness arises solely from the physical interaction of the brain and its internal biological processes.

For many philosophers, and religionists - consciousness comes from somewhere else.



There's a famous (in egghead circles) thought experiment that goes something like this:
Let's say you have a color-blind scientist, she hooks a person with normal vision up to an MRI and shows them the color red. She then maps those neural pathways and quantifies the brain's electro-chemical response to the color red.

She knows everything the brain knows about the color red - yet, she has not experienced seeing the color read.

Weeing red is something more than physical data.


Which brings me to my main thought (by way of Aaron in another thread in another place) -

If we accept the existence of consciousness as something more than the sum of its physical parts, than we must also accept that all emotions have a more-than-physical (dare I say it, metaphysical) correlate, perhaps origin.


What's more, if we take as a given that emotion, which is visibly fallible, imperfect, and irrational, has the same metaphysical origin as the soul - the very essence of be[ing], than what does that tell us about that non-physical (metaphysical) aspect of the universe?

Well, it certainly implies that the metaphysical realm is not ordered, and is probably ruled by the same chaotic principals (in some guise) as is the physical universe.


It stands to reason that if, as some philosophies argue, this metaphysical source is a conscious God than what?

Is God imperfect?

Or is it our concept of perfection which is flawed? The existence of God can only be an abstraction, a figment of our imagination, so therefore it is probably best to say that we cannot understand the ultimate causes, and/or purposes, of reality.

I think panexistentialism is a good way to approach the Mind Body Problem. In other words, matter and consciousness are like two sides of the same coin. They co-emerge.

I view god as being perfect in the same way that infinity can be viewed as perfect in that it contains all possibilities... even imperfection.

Quote :

Well, it certainly implies that the metaphysical realm is not ordered, and is probably ruled by the same chaotic principals (in some guise) as is the physical universe.

Hmmmm! That might be correct, but I'll have to give it more thought. My first reaction though is that the Metaphysical realm consists of ideas, principles, relationships, and so forth. In other words, it is the Ideal realm. I suspect that, as far as humans are concerned, metaphysics is as close as we can come to perfection in a dualistic world. In Ideality we can imagine true Love, and perfect Hate.

Presumably, in the Ideal realm Good and Evil can be corralled in separate categories, so they don't get all tangled-up together in a chaotic mess as they do in the Real world. Metaphysics (e.g.--Logic) is where we go to sort-out the disorderly details of mundane experience.

The "chaotic principle" is what we call Chance or Randomness in relationships (even romantic relationships???). Chance is itself a conceptual relationship between events. We mentally apply that idea to physical events, but I'm not sure it we could apply the concept of Chaos or Chance to other abstract ideas. I'll have to sleep on it.

I just learned, the other day, about Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann, who (in the 30s) put forth a completely radical theory of Quantum Mechanics. He stated that reality - the universe - wasn't built out of bits of matter, but rather bits of knowledge, "subjective, conscious knowings."

Therefore, the Reductionist take on Quantum Mechanics and Theory could very well be completely wrong!

Imagine that!

Mathematics is a fundamental aspect of physical reality, or res cogitan, and much like any of our physical perceptual frameworks is basically inapplicable to res extensa, or metaphysical reality.

Interesting thought.

Quote :

He stated that reality - the universe - wasn't built out of bits of matter, but rather bits of knowledge, "subjective, conscious knowings."

Where did you find that quote? I might want to add it to my Enformationism website.

That quote is from:

Schwartz, M.D., and Sharon Begley, Jeffrey M.. The Mind & The Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. 1. New York, NY: Harper Perrenial, 2003.


Page 31.


Quoting a physicist at the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory named Henry Stapp who is using the example of von Neumann to show that science hasn't always been so rigidly materialist in philosophy.