Soul

[Sriram]

Not sure how that makes any sense.  In a null world there would be no subjectivity.  Just as 'left' is defined by being not 'right', the idea of a subjective experiencer with nothing to experience makes no sense.  Subjectivity implies a context within which it has meaning.

Well...the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggests that without an observer there can be no objective reality. The PAP also suggests the idea that Consciousness participates in the creation of the universe. The philosophy of Panpsychism also suggests likewise. 

Most spiritual philosophies also suggest the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well...the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggests that without an observer there can be no objective reality. The PAP also suggests the idea that Consciousness participates in the creation of the universe. The philosophy of Panpsychism also suggests likewise. 

Most spiritual philosophies also suggest the same.

Also in certain mathematical  explanations concerning ex nihilo creation it is postulated that maths can be performed on zero to generate more numbers. If this is indeed how the universe was started...who was performing the necessary maths?

[Stranger]

Well...the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggests that without an observer there can be no objective reality.

No, it doesn't.

[Stranger]

Also in certain mathematical  explanations concerning ex nihilo creation it is postulated that maths can be performed on zero to generate more numbers. If this is indeed how the universe was started...who was performing the necessary maths?

What are you on (about)?

[Enki]

Well...the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggests that without an observer there can be no objective reality.

No, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM(which, by the way, is one of many) suggests only that any observation has an effect on the wave function of the system observed, resulting in its collapse. This observation can be the product of any device. One of the accepted explanations for this wave function collapse is decoherence which is a result of a quantum system naturally decaying due to contact with its surroundings. This is a long way from your idea that there can be no objective reality  without an observer(whatever you may mean by that).

[torridon]

Well...the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggests that without an observer there can be no objective reality. The PAP also suggests the idea that Consciousness participates in the creation of the universe. The philosophy of Panpsychism also suggests likewise. 

Most spiritual philosophies also suggest the same.

You are contradicting your previous post here I think. Subjectivity without objectivity makes no sense; an experiencer with nothing to experience makes no sense.  Experience is information transfer from object to subject.

[Enki]

Also in certain mathematical  explanations concerning ex nihilo creation it is postulated that maths can be performed on zero to generate more numbers. If this is indeed how the universe was started...who was performing the necessary maths?

Mathematics is a necessary aid  in describing how positive and negative energy are created to retain the zero equilibrium that is at the heart of our universe. Why on earth should that involve some sort of conscious entity?

[Sriram]

You are contradicting your previous post here I think. Subjectivity without objectivity makes no sense; an experiencer with nothing to experience makes no sense.  Experience is information transfer from object to subject.

That is because we are used to thinking of two different aspects of reality....the objective and the subjective. 

Take the example of virtual reality. In the VR world everything would seem perfectly real even though none of it actually exists. The VR world....its cosmos, planets, stars etc..... that we see are just magnetic impulses on a CD. There is nothing really out there.  The world gets created entirely in the mind. (Simulated universe is one of the recent theories).

What we experience as an objective reality is really a form of collective subjectivity.  If we think of consciousness as just electrical impulses in the brain then we tend to think of it as an isolated phenomenon in every individual, separate from the external world. 

If on the other hand, we think of consciousness as a universal and fundamental constituent of the universe (refer Panpsychism and IIT), subjectivity is all there is. The objective world is an illusion.


 

[torridon]

That is because we are used to thinking of two different aspects of reality....the objective and the subjective. 

Take the example of virtual reality. In the VR world everything would seem perfectly real even though none of it actually exists. The VR world....its cosmos, planets, stars etc..... that we see are just magnetic impulses on a CD. There is nothing really out there.  The world gets created entirely in the mind. (Simulated universe is one of the recent theories).

What we experience as an objective reality is really a form of collective subjectivity.  If we think of consciousness as just electrical impulses in the brain then we tend to think of it as an isolated phenomenon in every individual, separate from the external world. 

If on the other hand, we think of consciousness as a universal and fundamental constituent of the universe (refer Panpsychism and IIT), subjectivity is all there is. The objective world is an illusion.
 

1.  If we suppose panspychism to be true it does not remove subject/object relationships.  Even if atoms in a rock matrix were to be 'conscious' in some sense, that implies they would be 'conscious' of neighbouring particles; there is still a relationship there. You cannot be conscious without being conscious of something.

2. We might often say that the inner world created by mind is an illusion.  That doesn't mean that the outer world does not exist, but rather that we commonly take what we experience as if it were some objective reality when in fact it is a subjective interpretation of what is 'out there'.

[Sriram]

1.  If we suppose panspychism to be true it does not remove subject/object relationships.  Even if atoms in a rock matrix were to be 'conscious' in some sense, that implies they would be 'conscious' of neighbouring particles; there is still a relationship there. You cannot be conscious without being conscious of something.

2. We might often say that the inner world created by mind is an illusion.  That doesn't mean that the outer world does not exist, but rather that we commonly take what we experience as if it were some objective reality when in fact it is a subjective interpretation of what is 'out there'.

This brings us back to  the String. If the String were a fact....and it was conscious....doesn't the entire world born of its vibrations become an illusion?  Which is the subject and which is the object?!

I am not suggesting that we understand or that we even can understand all this in simple intellectual terms. The world is possibly more complex than we CAN imagine (as Haldane has said).  These are just sketchy ideas to illustrate various possibilities (not beliefs) that make the world so complex.

I am trying to bring up the idea of Consciousness, unconscious mind, Panpsychism, soul and consciousness, world is stranger than we can imagine, subjectivity vs objectivity, String theory etc. etc. only to highlight the complexity of the world and the futility of sticking to the old school ideas that we are so familiar with all these years.