KARL JASPERS FORUM
TA 106 (Müller)
Commentary 33 (to C32 McCarthy)
DO WE REALLY NEED TO
REINVENT THE IDEA OF
by Serge Patlavskiy
17 May 2008, posted 24 May 2008
[Maurice McCarthy] on 17 May 2008 wrote: "<2> Interestingly, this week's New Scientist No. 2655 (10 May 2008) carried an article by Stuart Kauffman on pages 52 to 53 to mark the publication of his new book Reinventing the Sacred. These are some the statements made:
"The process of reinventing the sacred requires a fresh understanding of science that takes into account complexity theory and the ideas of emergence. It will require a shift from reductionism, the way of thinking that still dominates our scientific world view. "
"I do not believe that the evolution of the biosphere, economy and human culture are derivable or reducible to physics."
"Yet what is more awesome: to believe that God created everything in six days, or to believe that the biosphere came into being on its own, with no creator, and partially lawlessly? I find the latter proposition so stunning, so worthy of awe and respect, that I am happy to accept this natural creativity in the universe as a reinvention of "God"."
[S.P.] My theory of consciousness makes use of the law I've called "The General Law of Conservation of Consciousness". This law states:
1) one living organism possesses only one (exemplar of) consciousness;
2) all (exemplars of) consciousness are of the same nature: they are realized on the same principles and are equal in their functionality and potentiality;
3) the total number of the (exemplars of) consciousness in the Universe is limited and conserves.
In fact, this law is just a partial case of a more general one: the number of states that the integrated information system can occupy is limited and conserves. We can come to the law of conservation of consciousness if we take into consideration only the informational characteristic of the integrated information system. If we take into consideration the material and/or energetic characteristics, and ignore the informational one, we come to the laws of conservation known to Physics.
The formulated law brings with itself several consequences. So, if the law is true, we would have to accept that in case of some conscious creature dies (on the Earth, or on any life-sustaining planet in the Universe), the other creature must necessarily emerge. I mean that if it dies, say, on the Earth, the other organism may appear as on the Earth, and on any other planet in the Universe. In other words, we would have to accept the idea of reincarnation on a scale of the whole Universe. If the law is true, we would have also to change our views upon the mechanisms of evolution, since it would be possible that some species appear not because of the survival of the fittest, but because they have become extinct on some other planet. We would even have to accept that, in principle, some lifeless (but potentially life-sustaining) planet may become inhabited with millions of different species just within a few days, if their mother-planet becomes destroyed in the result of such or other cosmic cataclysm.
Yes, the modern Physics-based science is unable to explain the facts of appearance and evolution of the life-forms. Some explanations it provides have no logic at all. For example, it is stated that they were the green plants that oxygenated the Earth's atmosphere. But let us think ourselves: for there to be the living organisms, there must be a proper mixture of the atmospheric gases including oxygen and ozone which protects organic forms from a killing ultraviolet radiation. The ozone appears mainly in the result of thunderstorm activity in the atmosphere that ALREADY contains sufficient amount of oxygen. So, according to the mainstream scientific explanation, the living organisms (green plants) had first to "prepare" the atmosphere (by producing the sufficient amount of oxygen), and only then to appear on this planet themselves. The irony is that the strong ultraviolet radiation is hazardous for the green plants as well. It seems also highly unrealistic that the life-sustaining conditions appeared by a mere chance.
So, I would like to insist that not only the total amount of (the exemplars) of consciousness is limited and conserves, but the total amount of the life-sustaining planet-like objects is limited and conserves too, and in case some life-sustaining planet is destroyed, the other planet becomes life-sustaining. I mean that the informational characteristic of that planet changes which causes the changes in its material and energetic characteristics: in tilt of its orbit and axis, in its speed of rotation and speed of revolution about the star, in its surface and atmospheric conditions, etc.
I always look for rational explanations, and the formulated law helps me to explain the unexplainable facts without the need of reinvention of the idea of God.
e-mail <prodigyPSF (at) rambler.ru>