I think I see what you mean (until the last para. anyway). It sounds like immanent cause relates to the old problem of complexity in biological ecologies and computer models of ecologies. The dynamics accounts for the emergence of the complexity, but it is not known what causes such systems to be behave dynamically in the first place unless the dynamics are externally given. "We need a reason why systems become more complex through time. It must be very simple and it must be very deep". (Stuart Kauffman)
How complex is the human mind from the POV of a rock? Complexity is fundamentally embedded in awareness. The act of abstraction forces this to be so. As input is abstracted into conceptual detail, that detail is complicated by itself + stuf to add to itself. In this sense, the system complicates and continually emerges from itself. To me, physical systems follow the same tendency. It's layers and stuff.
I don't think the issue here is how complexity evolves, or even exactly what it is. The issue is why it happens, what drives the dynamics that enable complexity to arise, what powers the system.
The fact that substance is necessarily continuous and animate, or in motion, at all scales means that substance can never come to a homogenous equilibrium. The nature of substance is such that in attempt for the disturbances of substance to come to an equilibrium it can actually cause the condensation of matter and energy into the more permanent modifications of substance known as atoms. This is the begining of complexification as we know it. This process occurs at the higher levels of macro-molecular evolution as well, however, as entropy is a self-reversing cycle. Heat is known to drive the evolution into further levels of complexity as the system tries to equilibrate the extra energy that cannot simply be destroyed. This is seen in the Bernard Instabilities and the homeostasis and evolution of life in general.
That may be true. But I'm not sure it answers the question when it comes to biological complexity, where the input of energy to the system is the result of intentional consumption of it by entities. However I haven't thought this through at all thoroughly.
Ok. Add basic amoeboid awareness and the selection principal and voila! Evolution! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BTW, you may be interested in the following link: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/
I can go along with that. Thanks for the link. Sometime ago I dismissed Theosophy as nonsense, basing that opinion on early writings. Having read a bit from this site I might have to change my mind. I'll read some more.
Sometime ago I also dismissed Theosophy as religious nonsense, but this site has opened a few of the doors to understanding its deeper aspect. I don't "believe" it all, however, and some of it does indeed seem to be nonsense, but there is some fascinating information there nonetheless and their basic world view is perfectly resonant with Sorce Theory and perhaps other (unknown to me) fluid-continuum models of reality. Especially see the "General science and philosophy" section and the "Mysteries of the Inner Earth" might get your head scratching as well!
By the way I see Buddhism ontology, in fact all non-dual ontologies, as consistent (almost) with Sorce theory. Did you get my PM?
I do too. I don't really buy the spiritual stuff of theosophy about reincarnation etc., however, without some serious modifications to the basic semantics, but I think the concept of karma is a far superior moral imperitive than the punishment and reward system of western religion. I am curious, what is the (almost) modifier signifying specifically?
Sorce is a theory of matter. Non-dual ontology extends beyond the strictly physical (and a little beyond even Theosophy) to something that has no external properties. From a physicalist perspective this sometimes looks like only a very slight difference in explanations, since it proposes only that there is one more substance in existence than Sorce can ever explain. This is why I said 'almost'. They're consistent with each other but only from a one point of view. From the other point of view Sorce theory is too limited in scope to explain existence, and is not almost consistent at all. It's a slippery topic.
The substance of Sorce Theory is identical to that of Spinoza and it does explain the root level of causality. Unless you are supposing that consciousness is outside the scope of an infinitely continuous substance in motion on all scales, i.e. infinitely complex causation (at which point understanding it is hopeless) then Sorce Theory is a non-dual metaphysical foundation for mind and an actual unification theory of physics in all its forms. Sorce Theory is not a scientific theory of mind, but it is a sufficient metaphysical scaffolding for such a theory. However, since it explains and unifies physics with understanding and causation and simultaneously provides an animate infinitely complex substrate for the proper emergence of complexity and mind then ultimately it it has the potential to unify all of science and philosophy under one metaphysical foundation. It says "Sorce Theory of Matter" but this is misleading. It is the continuity of substance and the infinite complexity of causation that enables substance to be identified with consciousness, and life, etc. "Nature is infinite in space and time -- boundless and eternal, unfathomable and ineffable. The all-pervading essence of infinite nature can be called space, consciousness, life, substance, force, energy, divinity -- all of which are fundamentally one." So, from your perspective there is a mental substance beneath the physical one? In my view, there is one infinite and continuous substance which is the root of all physical and mental phenomena. The difference is subtle and amounts to a difference in root-level definitions. Do you even know Sorce Theory? Are you assuming that existence has an origin in time? If not then there is no relevant WHY question to be asked of the origin of existence. The only other explanation necessary is WHAT existence actually is and WHY it works the way it does. This is explained quite adequately in Sorce Theory IMHO. What is inconsistent about Sorce Theory? Yes, that is why one must actually know the theory that one is attempting to critique. ;-)
What does this mean "no external properties"? Do you mean simply that it is the immanent or indwelling causation of everything (my view), or are you saying that ultimate causation has no extension, or are you attempting to go beyond causation altogether? If the latter, then how does causation ever arise from non-causation? In my view the roots of causation are infinitely divisible and continuous. You simply cannot reduce causation beyond that. To do so would be to postulate another acausal substance superimposed on Substance and we are back to dualism yet with no understanding of how the conscious acausal substance can cause the physical causal one.
I see what you're saying and half agree. But by a non-dual view this substance, if it is fundamental, should be non-dual, and thus from the other perspective a non-substance, since in all cases the state from which this substance arises has two aspects. Does Sorce go that far? I don't know. That seems to be true to me also. You're telling me it's misleading. Not a non-dual approach. Sort of. A state of experience that is non-being, or 'what it is like' to be nothing. I agree that this is one way of looking at it. Looking at it in this physical way I like to think of it as having the properties of a BE condensate, being both one and many and so on. Hardly at all. But as it was boldly titled a theory of matter I assumed that it was one. I can now see it's potentially more than that, but I'm afraid I took the title to be accurate. I'm interested in Sorce, not trying to dismiss it. However it seems to have limits in that from what little I know of it it does not explain consciousness. It also seems to assert that something physical underlies the phsyical world, a conclusion which does not seem logical to me. Would I be right in saying that Sorce is based on what I think is called 'dual substance monism'? Depends what you mean by existence. This is where I do strongly disgree. I feel that the only good explanation for existence are those in which existence is inevitable, and thus are ultimately self-referential. This is because it seems reasonable to suppose that the cosmos is entirely self-referential. As it is all there is it and it exists then it must inevitably cause itself. A true and complete explanation would explain this inevitability. Internally nothing as far as I know. It disagrees with a non-dual explanation, although neither disagrees with the physical evidence. Take it easy. It's called the 'Sorce Theory of Matter', what was I supposed to think? I'm genuinely interested in Sorce because it provides an explanation of the observable aspects of the universe that might marry up seamlessly with a non-dual explanation. However it doesn't at the moment. I'm sure it can, and I'm sure that the orthodox view cannot. However to me Sorce is still in Plato's cave, explaining the shadows, albeit that it seems to be a very good explanation of them to a non physicist such as myself.
Substance does not arise. It is not caused by anything because it is the root of causation. Yes it is far more than a theory of matter. It is a theory of observable reality based in a unifying metaphysics of non-observable reality. We definitely have a different definition of "non-dual". To me it means "unified" or monistic. I am not sure what it means to you. Nothing is self-negating. It does not and cannot exist. The statement is oxymoronic because "experience" requires activity yet nothingness cannot be active, in fact it cannot be at all. I think it is the term "substance" which is throwing you off from understandig what i mean. It seems to me you are looking for a non-causal type of substance and I have no understanding of any such thing. Substance is simply the root of existence. The root of causality itself. The author wanted it titled as such, but his term "matter" is identical to Spinoza's term "substance", which is not at all what we commonly know of as matter in physics. Well it does not explain all of biology, nor cognitive science, nor geoscience, nor computer science etc... It is not a theory of absolutely EVERYTHING, but a foundation for a unification of ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING through an understanding of all basic phenomena under the category of physics and metaphysics. In stead of thinking "physical" think "causal". Physical tends to conjure up images of solidity and simplicity. No. It is a neutral monism. You tell me. I don't see the difference. The universe is self-evident and the logic of causality necessitates that it is eternal. There is no origin thus we simply to to describe what the universe is not how it came to be. Substance is self-caused. It is in the nature of substance to exist. It cannot not-exist. Sorce Theory takes this view of substance. How so if it unifies all of physics and consciousness studies with an adequate conception of causation? Answer this question, canute. "Are you looking for a non-causal explanation of existence?" Sorry about that. I just get soooo much confusion about defensive pre-conceptions it puts me on guard. It is a non-dual explanation. You do not know that it doesn't at the moment. Not to me, really. ok
Can you tell me what your definition of "non-dual" is? It seems so far that you mean that a non-dual substance should be a substance and yet not be one. Surely that is not really what you mean by the term, is it? "But by a non-dual view this substance, if it is fundamental, should be non-dual, and thus from the other perspective a non-substance, since in all cases the state from which this substance arises has two aspects." There is one substance in Sorce Theory and there are an infinite number of perspectives from which to understand it. Can you explain to me how substance "arises" from non-substance?
Not clearly I'm afraid, but I'm happy to try. I'm trying to develop a way of doing it that sounds vaguely plausible. However crazy it sounds it is based on exactly the same evidence as orthodox science and Sorce theory, but also uses evidence from conscious experience. Non-dual-ism is sometimes taken to be the opposite of Cartesian dualism or to be some form of neutral monism. It is neither of these. In a non-dual ontology what underlies existence is 'not-two' but neither is it one. In a sense it is one, and in a sense it is many. It is something about which no true assertion may be made because to do so entails adopting a point of view, and doing this necessarily entails that there is an opposite point of view. By asserting one aspect you create a dual aspect, and your assertion becomes false or, from another perspective, half-true and half-false. In a sense this is a matter of epistemology and the way we think. It is accepted that all things that are perceivable and conceivable by us are inevitably epistemologically dual. (I'll back that up if needed). Hence Plato's cave metaphor. But in non-dual philosophy this strange epistemology is just a consequence of the ontological truth that gives rise to it. We think the way we do because of what we are, and what we are is very singular. What we are is not something that non-dual philosophy can explain, but it is what it is about. It asserts that the underlying substrate of existence cannot be proved. It is a state of being about which nothing more than half true can ever thought or said, never mind proved. This is why Buddhist writing, despite the obvious sanity and skill of its writers, is so completely self-contradictory and playful. By a non-dual view the something/nothing that underlies existence cannot be discussed ex hypothesis. The obvious irony of being forced to talk nonsense all the time while trying to explain the truth gives rise to much of the humour in the writings. It's like a Cosmic joke. By this view the underlying substrate of existence is purely subjective, completely outside the cave. It is therefore not directly describable in a theory. However I can't see why it shouldn't be possible to create a theory that includes both a physical theory of the universe, like Sorce, and the theory part of non-dual philosophy. It sounds impossible, but if the non-dual view is true, and a theory something like Sorce is true, then they should join up somewhere. I know you already think something like this, but I'm not sure you've seen the scale of the job. It's well into Nobel prize territory, and probably beyond. Because substance and non-substance are the same thing at the limit. However that doesn't answer the question of how the physical arises. Answering that question, if it is actually answerable, would require some strange synthesis of non-dual philosophy and science. That's what I'm working on. If you think all this is nonsense I won't be at all offended or surprised. (I'm going through the Orb site. How do I save the Acrobat book file once I've downloaded it?) Regards Canute
Thank you, canute, for that excellent explanation. It sounds totally agreeable to me, though I tend to think of it in different terms and categories. To me the ultimate nature of reality is not absolutely knowable, and no theory is ever absolutely complete. That is because theory is a product of the finite mind/body. Once you open the book, there is a little disk icon (the save button) in the upper-left corner of the acrobat frame within the browser. click it and save it to your HD. I also sent you a pm detailing the process, I believe. If you have any questions regarding the Sorce mechanisms feel free to ask.
Good grief, nobody's ever thanked me for that kind of an explanation before. Not being argumentative but the whole point of adopting a non-dual perspective (eg Buddhism) is that the nature of reality does become knowable, it just isn't conceivable or completely explicable. Goedel's incompleteness theorems are another way of looking at it, as Penrose and Hofstedter almost realised. Thanks for dummies guide to Acrobat.
