View Full Version : A Conscious Universe?
M. Gaspar
Apr5-03, 08:29 PM
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
heusdens
Apr5-03, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
This is just a matter of definition. And the definition of "life" and "consciousness" reserve there terms for living organisms only.
The problem is that if one would accept a broader definition of life and consciousness, then anything is life and conscious. Which isn't a handy term, because to say nothing is life and consciouss is then also true, it just makes life and conscious into meaningless terms.
You can only use definitions of the terms life and consciouss to distinguish properties of objects from others.
well sure but the universe is obviously liveing; i mean parts seem dead but plenty of it does not as well. but seeing as how we are alive and we are part of it, and conscious; it seems that the universe is also so by default.
The universe is conscious in that all its constituents are aware of each other. This is proven everytime we roll a bowling ball down a lane, or any other physical interaction you can think of: matter has to be aware of the existence of other matter in order to interact with each other.
oh ya i wasn't even thinking of the physics side of it as; good point Zero. [:)]
heusdens
Apr5-03, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by kyleb
well sure but the universe is obviously liveing; i mean parts seem dead but plenty of it does not as well. but seeing as how we are alive and we are part of it, and conscious; it seems that the universe is also so by default.
You are mixing terms here. Life is an opposite to dead. But life and dead are reserved for living organisms, which have the ability to self-reproduce. Maybe it is possible the universe is also self-reproducing, but then this means it is embedded in a larger reality.
I wouldn't call a rock for instance conscious, because it "knows" how gravitation works. I wouldn't call the universe life, because it is eternally changing.
But it is a matter of definition of course.
Iacchus32
Apr5-03, 10:34 PM
I have the will to live! ... Yes, but where did that will come from? ... Out of non-existence?
matter is like a television, and the energy of life is the electricity that turns it on...
steppenwolf
Apr6-03, 05:58 AM
some scientists when asked why life exists answer that it is because the universe wanted to 'know' itself. this idea has always fascinated me, it just doesn't make sense but is oddly captivating
wuliheron
Apr6-03, 09:28 AM
Heisenburg's personal philosophy supports this position, but Quantum Decoherence seems likely to seriously undermine attempts to prove it. Proving the idea that everything is ultimately consciousness or awareness may be impossible, but if it is possible at all it seems likely it can only be done on a statistical basis. Essentially you need to prove that there is no clear distinction between thought and physical reality and it is at least as useful to not distinguish between the two as it is to make the distinction.
M. Gaspar
Apr6-03, 12:55 PM
No time, at this moment, to look up the term Quantum Decoherence, but assume it means that things "fall apart".
Cosmologically speaking , aux contraire! The Universe tends toward COHERENCING -- hence, galaxies, stars and us. Of course, things explode and fall apart, but for the most part, it comes together over time.
As to whether there is consciousness "in" the Universe: well, WE are in the Universe, and We (or some of us) are conscious. Hence, the Universe has consciousness "in" it.
Actually, I believe (as others do -- tho not ALL others, of course) that everything -- even an elementary particle -- has a bit of consciousness to it. It is, perhaps, the (or ONE of the) connective threads that allows the Universe to be incommunication with -- and responsive to -- all of Its parts.
heusdens
Apr6-03, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
No time, at this moment, to look up the term Quantum Decoherence, but assume it means that things "fall apart".
Cosmologically speaking , aux contraire! The Universe tends toward COHERENCING -- hence, galaxies, stars and us. Of course, things explode and fall apart, but for the most part, it comes together over time.
As to whether there is consciousness "in" the Universe: well, WE are in the Universe, and We (or some of us) are conscious. Hence, the Universe has consciousness "in" it.
Actually, I believe (as others do -- tho not ALL others, of course) that everything -- even an elementary particle -- has a bit of consciousness to it. It is, perhaps, the (or ONE of the) connective threads that allows the Universe to be incommunication with -- and responsive to -- all of Its parts.
This is something like asking wether a single water molecule can freeze, or if you can clap with one hand.
In fact, to have a better vision on this kind of question, you better use some dialectical laws like the transoformation from quantity into quality.
Like the boiling of water: at first you raise the temperature in a qualitative way, until suddenly, at the temperature of boiling, a qualitative change occurs, the water changes from liquid into gas while the water temperature remains the boiling temperature.
wuliheron
Apr6-03, 01:34 PM
What you are referring to is called "synergy". Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possess unique properties they do not have separately.
No time, at this moment, to look up the term Quantum Decoherence, but assume it means that things "fall apart".
Quantum Decoherence is not synonymous with entropy, hense it has a seperate and distinct nomenclature.
Cosmologically speaking , aux contraire! The Universe tends toward COHERENCING -- hence, galaxies, stars and us. Of course, things explode and fall apart, but for the most part, it comes together over time.
Now you contradict yourself. Which is it, does entropy rule or does syntropy? Syntropy is the opposite of entropy, the tendency of things to become more organized over time. If things simply become more organized over larger scales, then what is the meaning of life, the universe, everything? Order? What rhetorical nonsense.
M. Gaspar
Apr6-03, 04:15 PM
As I said, I didn't have time to look up the term "Quantum Decoherence"... so I was just GUESSING at its meaning. Since you were kind enough to tell me what it is NOT (entropy) perhaps you'll kindly tell me what is IS.
And how did I contradict myself when I never used the word "synoptry"...tho I guess I described it when I suggested that the Universe tends toward order (despite the co-existence of chaos). This has always been my position.
If there were no such tendency, then there would not be billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, and stars with orbiting planets, and at least ONE planet with organized chunks of sentience...namely, you and me.
Finally, to your question, which is roughly: what would be the point of this tendency toward coherency? And I say that at the moment of the most recent "Big Bang" (as with all others), the singularity that was Everything That Is burst forth to have ANOTHER EXPERIENCE!
The seeming fragmentation of all of Its parts belies Its connectedness.
Still, the diffusion of matter,energy, consciousness and spirit served the purpose of "mixing it up" as it were, like reshuffling the deck, so that natural forces of the Entity that is the Universe could pull things together in novel ways so that it could have a DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE than in Its PREVIOUS incarnations.
And how do I come to think that the Universe is "out to have an Experience"? If I were an Entity that just had a very complex and exhilarating experience that taught me many things about myself, would I then be content to sit and think about that experience through eternity. Or, would I want to see what I could create NEXT?
Please be specific when you point to my "rhetorial nonsense" so that I can continue to clarify my speculations for myself.
wuliheron
Apr6-03, 06:29 PM
As I said, I didn't have time to look up the term "Quantum Decoherence"... so I was just GUESSING at its meaning. Since you were kind enough to tell me what it is NOT (entropy) perhaps you'll kindly tell me what is IS.
Quantum Decoherence is a phenomenon related to the Heisenburg Indetermancy Principle, quite likely the most fundamental physical principle discovered to date. Essentially, Heisenburg's personal philosophy was a pantheistic one similar to Buddhism which asserts existence is a consensual reality and everything is ultimately composed of awareness, whatever that might be. Quantum Decoherence is an idea that challanges this aspect of Indetermancy.
Shrondenger's Cat is the most famous thought experiment concerning Indetermancy and Quantum Decoherence. He showed that according to Quantum Mechanics as it was originally formulated, a cat could somehow be kept in a state of both alive and dead at the same time, until observed by someone. It's the modern physical update on the age old question of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it........ does it make a sound?" Not only does it not make a sound necessarilly according to Quantum Mechanics, but it may well have somehow both fallen and not fallen.
Quantum Decoherence attempts to make some sense of this connundrum by asserting that although this paradoxical state of affairs might be real, instead of the observer being responsible for its collapsing into something more reasonable, it is environmental noise. So far, the statistical evidence is in favor of Quantum Decoherence. Instead of our personal awareness dictating reality as we know it, it is environmental noise collapsing the wavefunction, again, whatever that might be.
As for entropy, there are several different scientific definitions of the word. Essentially though it refers to the tendancy of orderly systems to become more disordered.
M. Gaspar
Apr6-03, 07:04 PM
And more on "environmental noise"?
wuliheron
Apr6-03, 08:56 PM
The essential statement of Quantum Mechanics is that everything is ultimately random. The order we observe is merely the residual of a profound chaos that underlies everything. This contrasts with the strong equivalency principle of Relativity which asserts that space=time=energy=mass=gravity etc. This is precisely why the theory of Relativity has proven irreconcilable with QM and the two theories have proven to be approximately equally accurate which only adds to the confusion.
Thus, "noise" is quite possibly a relative term or even an ineffable one, but it still has its uses. :0)
There are some drastic misconcetions here. First off, the universe does not tend toward more "coherence" just because things come together. Every time something comes together (from an atom to a galaxy) it creates HEAT; lots of it. This heat is disorderly (obviously), and thus the supposed "order" causes even greater actual disorder.
Another misconception has to do with consciousness/awareness. The universe cannot be aware if even primitive, living ("living" by biologists' standards), things are not aware. The universe itself is the collection of everything, and cannot thus be considered alive or dead, but parts of it (or "something"s) can be considered living or non-living.
wuliheron
Apr6-03, 09:49 PM
There are some drastic misconcetions here. First off, the universe does not tend toward more "coherence" just because things come together. Every time something comes together (from an atom to a galaxy) it creates HEAT; lots of it. This heat is disorderly (obviously), and thus the supposed "order" causes even greater actual disorder.
And to think all this began with the ultimate ordered state, a singularity.
Another misconception has to do with consciousness/awareness. The universe cannot be aware if even primitive, living ("living" by biologists' standards), things are not aware. The universe itself is the collection of everything, and cannot thus be considered alive or dead, but parts of it (or "something"s) can be considered living or non-living.
Sorry, but the definition of animate and inanimate is not so clear cut. I've sometimes described people as "hairy walking sponges prone to parasites" but the truth is us walking sponges are made out of teny tiny rocks and water. I think a human body rendered thus is worth maybe a few hundred dollars on the market today. Exactly where you draw the line between animate and inanimate, alive and dead, conscious and unconscious may be just a question of scale and relative perception.
For example, I cannot live without the air I breath, the water I drink, and the food I eat to name but a few of the essentials. Are they then to be considered alive or dead? This is a question biologists and whatnot have debated a great deal. For the most part they have settled on a working definition of life instead of attempting to create an absolute one.
A virus or prion, for example, cannot reproduce or move around or even "die" for that matter (if indeed they are alive) under their own power. Whether or not you consider them to be alive or just an interesting chemical reaction then is wholly dependent upon your perspective. Certainly viruses contain dna and evolve for survival like all recognized lifeforms, but so what.
Are mountains alive, is the earth itself alive and just moving in slow motion? Ours is evidently a universe of unending change and irresistable forces. The more we learn about living things the more the universe appears to be geared towards producing them. Or, the more it seems living things are all there is.
This confusing situation gained renewed significance with the advent of Quantum Mechanics. Photons seemed to somehow know when someone was watching them and when they weren't and their behavior changed accordingly. Don't get me wrong, I am most emphatically not asserting that the entire universe is alive and conscious, just emphatically stating that anyone who asserts they know the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is suspect.
M. Gaspar
Apr6-03, 09:51 PM
Firstly, there are those who believe that there is consciousness in everything...even elementary particles. The fact that this can't be "tested" or "measured" AT THE MOMENT doesn't preclude it as a POSSIBILITY. I am simply taking the position that its possible.
Secondly, are you suggesting that the formation of billions of galaxies, each made up of billions of stars, some of which have planets orbiting about them, and at least ONE of those planets has given rise to coherent chunks of sentient beings (namely, us) -- is NOT "evidence" that the Universe tends toward coherency?
It does not follow, as you suggest, that because the formation of something causes a disruption in its environment -- even a MAJOR one -- that the formation of the thing didn't take place as a result of natural processes. Would there be BILLIONS of the same coherent chunks of energy and matter if it weren't a natural tendency of the Universe to produce them?
Thirdly, is an atom "not living"? How about it's electrons. Are quarks "not living". How about muons and mesons? Some might say they ARE, but even if they are NOT by YOUR or a biologist's definition, do they NOT join together to make up entities such as US... and are WE not "alive". If we -- as creatures -- are more than the sum of our parts, then so, too, might the Universe.
Originally posted by wuliheron
And to think all this began with the ultimate ordered state, a singularity.
Sorry, but the definition of animate and inanimate is not so clear cut. I've sometimes described people as "hairy walking sponges prone to parasites" but the truth is us walking sponges are made out of teny tiny rocks and water. I think a human body rendered thus is worth maybe a few hundred dollars on the market today. Exactly where you draw the line between animate and inanimate, alive and dead, conscious and unconscious may be just a question of scale and relative perception.
For example, I cannot live without the air I breath, the water I drink, and the food I eat to name but a few of the essentials. Are they then to be considered alive or dead? This is a question biologists and whatnot have debated a great deal. For the most part they have settled on a working definition of life instead of attempting to create an absolute one.
A virus or prion, for example, cannot reproduce or move around or even "die" for that matter (if indeed they are alive) under their own power. Whether or not you consider them to be alive or just an interesting chemical reaction then is wholly dependent upon your perspective. Certainly viruses contain dna and evolve for survival like all recognized lifeforms, but so what.
Are mountains alive, is the earth itself alive and just moving in slow motion? Ours is evidently a universe of unending change and irresistable forces. The more we learn about living things the more the universe appears to be geared towards producing them. Or, the more it seems living things are all there is.
This confusing situation gained renewed significance with the advent of Quantum Mechanics. Photons seemed to somehow know when someone was watching them and when they weren't and their behavior changed accordingly. Don't get me wrong, I am most emphatically not asserting that the entire universe is alive and conscious, just emphatically stating that anyone who asserts they know the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is suspect.
I think you slightly missed my point. I'm not saying that the universe is not moving and animate. I am saying that it is "living", by biologists' standards. One of the requirements to be considered a "living" thing, is that it (or at least members of it's species) be able to reproduce more of themselves, and this alone disqualifies the universe.
Also, awareness/consciousness is the product of learning, and the universe has no (known) processing unit, by which to learn.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Firstly, there are those who believe that there is consciousness in everything...even elementary particles. The fact that this can't be "tested" or "measured" AT THE MOMENT doesn't preclude it as a POSSIBILITY. I am simply taking the position that its possible.
"Consciousness" is a quality of those that can process input (otherwise, what would it be conscious of?), and thus the universe (being unable to process input (and never really recieving any "input", anyway)) cannot be conscious. Same goes for an elementary particle (except for the part about not recieving any input).
Secondly, are you suggesting that the formation of billions of galaxies, each made up of billions of stars, some of which have planets orbiting about them, and at least ONE of those planets has given rise to coherent chunks of sentient beings (namely, us) -- is NOT "evidence" that the Universe tends toward coherency?
It tends toward increasing chaos (second law of Thermodynamics). The fact that it forms percieved "order", is just further proof of this - since percieved "order" causes greater disorder.
Thirdly, is an atom "not living"? How about it's electrons. Are quarks "not living". How about muons and mesons? Some might say they ARE, but even if they are NOT by YOUR or a biologist's definition, do they NOT join together to make up entities such as US... and are WE not "alive". If we -- as creatures -- are more than the sum of our parts, then so, too, might the Universe.
But we are not more than the sum of our parts, and that is the point. An atom is not living, because it takes many atoms to make a living thing (the least complex of which is a cell).
wuliheron
Apr6-03, 10:12 PM
I think you slightly missed my point. I'm not saying that the universe is not moving and animate. I am saying that it is "living", by biologists' standards. One of the requirements to be considered a "living" thing, is that it (or at least members of it's species) be able to reproduce more of themselves, and this alone disqualifies the universe.
Also, awareness/consciousness is the product of learning, and the universe has no (known) processing unit, by which to learn.
According to the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the universe is constantly giving birth to other universes. I don't want to go into the pornographic details, but that is a distinct possiblity. Likewise, it may be learning new tricks-of-the-trade but, again, I don't want to go into the pornographic details. This is, after all, a scholarly site.
But we are not more than the sum of our parts, and that is the point. An atom is not living, because it takes many atoms to make a living thing (the least complex of which is a cell).
Synergy or sex, it just depends upon your point of view. Most pointedly, it depends upon your attitude.
M. Gaspar
Apr6-03, 10:14 PM
The fact the that Universe may keep reproducing ITSELF -- via endless expansion and contractions -- is good enough for ME.
As to It's ability to process information: if, indeed, every piece of matter/energy had a piece of consciousness "in" it, and these bits of consciousness were "connected" in some way, then this would be the network though which information -- both incoming and outgoing -- would be processed.
I am taking the case that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.
I am seeing how far I can go with this in the face of mechanistic viewpoints. So far, so good, I think.
Originally posted by wuliheron
According to the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the universe is constantly giving birth to other universes. I don't want to go into the pornographic details, but that is a distinct possiblity. Likewise, it may be learning new tricks-of-the-trade but, again, I don't want to go into the pornographic details. This is, after all, a scholarly site.
Not pornography, Biology. BTW, the universe is not producing more universes, these supposed "other universes" have not been observed and thus only half exist.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
The fact the that Universe may keep reproducing ITSELF -- via endless expansion and contractions -- is good enough for ME.
How can that be good enough? Besides, there is no proof that the universe endlessly contracts and expands.
As to It's ability to process information: if, indeed, every piece of matter/energy had a piece of consciousness "in" it, and these bits of consciousness were "connected" in some way, then this would be the network though which information -- both incoming and outgoing -- would be processed.
These matter/energy pieces actually have to work together, in order to process information, duh (no offense).
I am taking the case that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.
I am seeing how far I can go with this in the face of mechanistic viewpoints. So far, so good, I think.
It can't respond to it's parts, unless it has parts that work together to process that information.
wuliheron
Apr6-03, 10:33 PM
Not pornography, Biology. BTW, the universe is not producing more universes, these supposed "other universes" have not been observed and thus only half exist.
That's exactly what she said, "I'm just a little bit pregnant!"
M. Gaspar
Apr6-03, 10:41 PM
And what makes you suppose that matter and energy aren't "working together"? I am astounded.
Iacchus32
Apr6-03, 11:09 PM
If the Universe was conscious, then that would be the same, at least to us, in the "physical sense," as the "collective unconscious" wouldn't it? Which, is also the realm of dreams, spirits and archetypes.
M. Gaspar
Apr6-03, 11:33 PM
IACCHUS:
You've managed to lump a few things together in an attempt to discredit the speculation that there's a thread of consciousness that runs through everything... so that the Universe is nicely "hooked up".
Do we have dreams that tap in? Maybe.
Is there a spiritual aspect to the Universe? Possibly.
Are archetypes a way of talking about similar "things" and, like any other "model", not exactly "real"? Probably so.
Do these things constitute a "realm" that includes -- NOT the Collective UNconscious (though there might be that,too) but the Collective CONSCIOUSNESS -- or network of thought -- that may or may not exist as part of the Universe.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr7-03, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
To answer such questions, you must first find what the definition of life is. What makes something alive. It is unidefined....personally, I think the universe is alive since it does have chemical reactions.
Iacchus32
Apr7-03, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
IACCHUS:
You've managed to lump a few things together in an attempt to discredit the speculation that there's a thread of consciousness that runs through everything... so that the Universe is nicely "hooked up".
Do we have dreams that tap in? Maybe.
Is there a spiritual aspect to the Universe? Possibly.
Are archetypes a way of talking about similar "things" and, like any other "model", not exactly "real"? Probably so.
Do these things constitute a "realm" that includes -- NOT the Collective UNconscious (though there might be that,too) but the Collective CONSCIOUSNESS -- or network of thought -- that may or may not exist as part of the Universe.
Deride? No. I only say "unconscious" in the sense that most of us can't tap into it directly (and speak with it), other than that I don't see why it can't be one and the same ... In fact it makes a great deal of sense.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I have the will to live! ... Yes, but where did that will come from? ... Out of non-existence?
Perhaps you construed my original comment as derisive? Which in effect probably was, but only in the sense that it's rather obvious and I don't need to look any further than myself. And yet the derisive part would have been directed more towards those who would have you believe otherwise (that the Universe wasn't conscious).
Iacchus32
Apr7-03, 04:30 AM
Thus as you say, there's a thread of conciousness which runs through everything, I thought I would bring up my piece about grubs here, which refers to the one silken thread, "wisdom," by which one begins to "tap in" so to speak.
From the previous (PF 2.0) thread, What do grubs know? ...
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What do grubs know, except perhaps intuitively, what it's like to be a butterfly?
Could it be this is a reflection of our own condition, where we too are earthbound and in need of a "grubstake," as we look around with ravenous appetites and devour everything in sight?
It all seems kind of narrow-minded dosen't it? But then what does a grub know? Not much beyond being a grub I suppose ... but, there will come a time ...
We go to the ends of the universe to discover the truth, with a slew of fancy instruments and calculations and "God" knows what else? (and only he can) but, when you get right down to it, what do we really know beyond what a grub knows, as we "grub" around in the dark?
But, there will come a time in the life of the grub when he says enough is enough, I've had it, leave me alone, I would just like to lay down for awhile.
You see I've stripped the "Tree of Knowledge" bare, and now that I'm full (of myself?), what's the point? Where's the silken thread (wisdom) to this big walking sack of knowledge? I need some time to reflect.
Ahh, what's that you say? Something's coming out my rear end? What? I have everything back to front? Could it be? Yes, there it is! ... the thread ... and, what does the thread say? 1 + 1 = 2. Wow! even a little child could understand that! ... and therein lies the answer.
Perhaps what we need is to take some time out from our "worldliness" and reflect on why 1 + 1 = 2? For if in fact you can see this for yourself, without someone else to say it was so, then why isn't it possible to acknowledge the existence of God? Once again, if you were to ask little children about this (if God existed), most would probably relpy, "Yes."
And from the "one mind" we fallen, to accept "the two," and hence the "knowledge of opposites." 1 + 1 = 2.
M. Gaspar
Apr7-03, 07:33 AM
...this, too, shall pass...
...like the thread you have managed to EXpell, but no DISpell.
It seems there are many camps:
In MY camp, the UNIVERSE is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts -- not "created BY" an "outside force" called "God" -- but an Eternal Entity of Energy that goes on and on (much like WE do!).
In YOUR camp, "God" is an all-knowing, all-powerful "Creator of the Universe" who is made evident by "His" works.
In OTHER camps, "God" is NOT so evident and must be SOUGHT.
In STILL OTHER camps, "God" must be "proven" mathematically.
There's ALSO a camp that proclaims "God" is "His" own "SON"...a hat trick I will never understand.
Then there's ANOTHER camp that calls "God" another name and believes "He" has asked them to fly airplanes into buildings. (...which is not to deride the LARGER camp that bellieves "the Struggle" is within OURSELVES).
I could go on...and WILL:
What might a grub "know"? What might a proton "know"? What might we "know"? What might "God" "know"? What might the Universe "know".
Perhaps, that it is what it is. I DON'T "know". I speculate.
There are a few games in town. One is speculation. Another is "proving" via testing (or mathematics). Another might be having your "answers" delivered!
Not satisfied with the last, and not capable of the middle, I engage in the first game at FULL TILT!
Rest awhile, IACCHUS, and return refreshed to the game...cause I think we're on the same field...but DIFFERENT CAMPS!
Iacchus32
Apr7-03, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...this, too, shall pass...
...like the thread you have managed to EXpell, but no DISpell.
It seems there are many camps:
In MY camp, the UNIVERSE is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts -- not "created BY" an "outside force" called "God" -- but an Eternal Entity of Energy that goes on and on (much like WE do!).
In YOUR camp, "God" is an all-knowing, all-powerful "Creator of the Universe" who is made evident by "His" works.
In OTHER camps, "God" is NOT so evident and must be SOUGHT.
In STILL OTHER camps, "God" must be "proven" mathematically.
There's ALSO a camp that proclaims "God" is "His" own "SON"...a hat trick I will never understand.
Then there's ANOTHER camp that calls "God" another name and believes "He" has asked them to fly airplanes into buildings. (...which is not to deride the LARGER camp that bellieves "the Struggle" is within OURSELVES).
I subscribe to all of the above, even the last, because I can't say I've never been without delusion. Hmm... I wonder if this is what wuliheron means by acceptance?
Actually you're right in that I do need to get some rest, Thanks!
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
To answer such questions, you must first find what the definition of life is. What makes something alive. It is unidefined....personally, I think the universe is alive since it does have chemical reactions.
But fire is a chemical reaction, and it isn't alive.
M. Gaspar
Apr7-03, 10:01 PM
Or maybe it IS.
Iacchus32
Apr8-03, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
But fire is a chemical reaction, and it isn't alive.
And yet it seems to be giving off "the essence" of something. Even if derived from an "inanimate form."
Iacchus32
Apr8-03, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What might a grub "know"? What might a proton "know"? What might we "know"? What might "God" "know"? What might the Universe "know".
Perhaps, that it is what it is. I DON'T "know". I speculate.
But we all know that grubs turn into butterflies, and that in fact there is an afterlife, at least for grubs anyway.
M. Gaspar
Apr8-03, 08:30 AM
When big stars "die"...isn't it odd that their "corpse" has a powerful, attractive force that STILL effects its neighborhood, if not the Universe?
Iacchus32
Apr8-03, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
When big stars "die"...isn't it odd that their "corpse" has a powerful, attractive force that STILL effects its neighborhood, if not the Universe?
Oh, do you mean like Elvis? Or perhaps Lenin? And oh yeah, "Jesus Christ Superstar!" Hey, if I didn't know your cosmological bent (not that I'm really up on cosmology), I would say you're talking about people here. And yet that's not the way I took it. Even so there's something peculiar about it either way now isn't there?
I take it you're referring to things like red giants, white dwarfs, black holes, etc., Right? While I guess you would be talking about their "gravity fields."
M. Gaspar
Apr8-03, 11:14 AM
I'm talking about their gavitational fields...an odd "echo" for something considered "dead".
May I not speak figuratively in a PHYSICS Forum?
More later...gotta get some GRUB (before it turns into a butterfly and I have to chase it around the room to eat it).
Originally posted by Iacchus32
But we all know that grubs turn into butterflies, and that in fact there is an afterlife, at least for grubs anyway.
How is this proof of any afterlife? No offense, but were you serious here?
heusdens
Apr9-03, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
How is this proof of any afterlife? No offense, but were you serious here?
I think he was serious bout that, an afterlife for grubs.
And we can be serious of afterlifes for embryoos, babies, and infants too!
Originally posted by heusdens
I think he was serious bout that, an afterlife for grubs.
And we can be serious of afterlifes for embryoos, babies, and infants too!
Look at the word "afterlife", and tell me you don't see a compound word. It is obviously composed of the words, "after" and "life". Unless the grub dies, before becoming a butterfly (which it doesn't), the butterfly is not an afterlife of the grub.
Iacchus32
Apr9-03, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Look at the word "afterlife", and tell me you don't see a compound word. It is obviously composed of the words, "after" and "life". Unless the grub dies, before becoming a butterfly (which it doesn't), the butterfly is not an afterlife of the grub.
Use your imagination!
And yet there will come a time in the life of the grub when an amazing transformation takes place, and through this one silken thread (wisdom) he spins his little cocoon and prepares for a very long deep sleep (death). And yet he finally awakens, only to discover that he's a new creature, and that indeed, there is an afterlife! Well at least for grubs anyway.
Isn't it a marvel that a grub can do this? Whose to say it isn't any different for human beings? Mother Nature has many mysteries to teach us which, after all, is what gave rise to science isn't it?
M. Gaspar
Apr9-03, 10:58 PM
...that it's not the same for the UNIVERSE...a series of INFINITE INCARNATIONS from "Big Bang" to "Big Crunch" to next "Big Bang". [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?]
BoulderHead
Apr9-03, 11:06 PM
Isn't it a marvel that a grub can do this? Whose to say it isn't any different for human beings?Yes it is indeed a marvel. Unfortunately the cocoons which people do their transformations in are often spun from yarn and used to lace the inside pine boxes.
Iacchus32
Apr9-03, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...that it's not the same for the UNIVERSE...a series of INFINITE INCARNATIONS from "Big Bang" to "Big Crunch" to next "Big Bang". [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?]
I'm afraid the only real reference point I have is myself (consciously). And besides not being up on comsmology, I'm not really sure I can speak about the Universe as whole. Although I do believe it's conscious, because consciousness emanates from God (i.e., the one being the cause and the other being the effect).
Iacchus32
Apr10-03, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Yes it is indeed a marvel. Unfortunately the cocoons which people do their transformations in are often spun from yarn and used to lace the inside pine boxes.
Yes, but where does this complex energy pattern (or field) which is so attached to our body, what we would call "our essence" (or soul), go when we die? Even something as inanimate as a piece of (dead) wood has to burn before it gives off its essence. But with something which is alive, like us, we expire just like that. Does our consciousness just evaporate into thin air? Of course you could cremate the "dead corpse" any time afterwards, but that would be comparable to burning a piece of dead wood? I mean what gives?
Besides, where do we go when we dream?
BoulderHead
Apr10-03, 12:06 AM
...Does our consciousness just evaporate into thin air? It might simply fade away after a few moments.
...I mean what gives?I'd like to simply say that I'm Dying to find out.[:)]
Iacchus32
Apr10-03, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...that it's not the same for the UNIVERSE...a series of INFINITE INCARNATIONS from "Big Bang" to "Big Crunch" to next "Big Bang". [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?]
I'm afraid the only real reference point I have is myself (consciously). And besides not being up on comsmology, I'm not really sure I can speak about the Universe as whole. Although I do believe it's conscious, because consciousness emanates from God (i.e., the one being the cause and the other being the effect).
And what criteria are you using? Are saying the "Big Bang" has occured more than once? And what do you mean by "Big Crunch?" Or, are these just reverberations of the "original event?" Whereas I'm afraid if the Universe is going to collapse, and blast apart all over again, it won't be happening anytime soon, and I won't be here to witness it.
Of course I do believe the Universe is constantly tearing itself to pieces and constantly re-assimilating itself due to "the clash" between Good and Evil. Which is why we all experience "pleasure and pain."
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Use your imagination!
And yet there will come a time in the life of the grub when an amazing transformation takes place, and through this one silken thread (wisdom) he spins his little cocoon and prepares for a very long deep sleep (death). And yet he finally awakens, only to discover that he's a new creature, and that indeed, there is an afterlife! Well at least for grubs anyway.
Isn't it a marvel that a grub can do this? Whose to say it isn't any different for human beings? Mother Nature has many mysteries to teach us which, after all, is what gave rise to science isn't it?
The actual grub is not dead, when it is in it's cocoon.
The symbolic grub can do whatever you want it to, provided you add some meaning to it, after having given the illustration.
M. Gaspar
Apr10-03, 05:39 PM
I'm saying the Universe is an Entity that has INFINITE INCARNATIONS...from "Big Bang" through EXPANSION through CONTRACTION to "Big Crunch" then another "Big Bang", etc
Or, let me put it another way...
[?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] ...if you get my drift.
Iacchus32
Apr10-03, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'm saying the Universe is an Entity that has INFINITE INCARNATIONS...from "Big Bang" through EXPANSION through CONTRACTION to "Big Crunch" then another "Big Bang", etc
Or, let me put it another way...
[?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] ...if you get my drift.
Oh, do you mean the rhythm of the Universe? As in frequency? I understand its number is "432" ...
Of course I have my own ideas about the Big Bang theory, but that would imply God had a mistress, and that the Universe was conceived in "the moment."
nevagil
Apr11-03, 04:07 AM
Mentat's point suggest to me the grub just stayed alive not zooming to afterlife although the question still lives. It is like Plato's allegory of livin in a cave one's whole life, the sounds outside may seem like God's and the outside does exist even if the ones inside the cave don't realize it.
By the way, for the sake of humor, my sister used to be a butterfly, but now she is a grub.
Sad but true, www.surrealcity.com and well a teacher once said about the afterlife, He will wait until he dies to find out. And we deserve a definitive answer, don't we? Geez, maybe I don't. Bye for now, Gilnv.
Iacchus32
Apr11-03, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
The actual grub is not dead, when it is in it's cocoon.
But that's the whole point, if there is an afterlife for us humans, then technically we're not dead either when we rise out of our dead corpses, or coffins, or cocoons or whatever. All of which is reflected in the following:
"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine." (Matthew 22:31-33)
Originally posted by Mentat
The symbolic grub can do whatever you want it to, provided you add some meaning to it, after having given the illustration.
Did you read the piece What do grubs know (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=830&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) above? I think the illustration and the meaning suites the symbolism just fine. Although I think you're suggesting I just come right out and say, Hey everybody, there's an afterlife! Now how far do you think that would go? At least this way I probably got you to think about it ...
Iacchus32
Apr11-03, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by nevagil
Mentat's point suggest to me the grub just stayed alive not zooming to afterlife although the question still lives. It is like Plato's allegory of livin in a cave one's whole life, the sounds outside may seem like God's and the outside does exist even if the ones inside the cave don't realize it.
Am not sure what you're saying? Are you saying Mentat is not acknowledging that the grub undergoes a "transformation" into an entirely different state? And that it "truly transcends" (meaning, to rise above) its previous state? If so, then I agree, otherwise you'll have to make yourself more clear.
nevagil
Apr11-03, 07:01 PM
I thought Mentat meant the grub doesn't go to afterlife because it doesn't die, just transforms. I think Iacchus32 considers the transformation an afterlife or at least a good symbolic example of an afterlife. So it has me thinking that I've hoped that if there is an afterlife that we would be keeping our same consciousness, and not do such a transformation that I don't recall being human. I guess I'm questioning the definition of afterlife. Emotionally I wanta keep my consciousness. Many things like the universe don't seem conscious with choice or emotion. The universe seems like a hybred fruit tree that is living, reacting and could be split into two living parts or have half of it mixed with another universe for a hybred but it doesn't seem conscious or capable of reproduction. Although maybe us humans are the conscious part of it, like maybe we are its brain. Maybe humans someday will control the universe enough so that it can reproduce with our help.Then in that line of thinking maybe the universe is conscious a little. Maybe thats what that term collective consciousness or universe meant, I just glanced over that area.
Enjoy the spring, bye for now.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
But that's the whole point, if there is an afterlife for us humans, then technically we're not dead either when we rise out of our dead corpses, or coffins, or cocoons or whatever. All of which is reflected in the following:
"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine." (Matthew 22:31-33)
Exactly, and if one doesn't die, then there can be no period that is "after life". There may be a resurrection (my opinion on that is irrelevant, and that is a Religious issue anyway), but that doesn't mean that the grub needs to be "resurrected" from it's transforming state (within the cocoon). It doesn't need to be resurrected because it's not dead.
Did you read the piece What do grubs know (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=830&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) above? I think the illustration and the meaning suites the symbolism just fine. Although I think you're suggesting I just come right out and say, Hey everybody, there's an afterlife! Now how far do you think that would go? At least this way I probably got you to think about it ...
This issue is entirely religious, and has no place in the Philosophy Forum. I mean no offense to you at all. It's just that the reason I don't post in the Religion Forum is that I made an agreement with someone that I wouldn't discuss Religious isssues, on the PFs. The person I made the agreement with doesn't mind that sometimes the topics get religious, and I keep resonding, so long as the mentors move it quickly, and I don't respond to it, once it's in the Religion Forum.
M. Gaspar
Apr11-03, 11:54 PM
Is it a philosophical, religious, spiritual or cosmological discussion that asks whether the Universe is conscious?
We know that there is consciousness "in" the Universe...so I think of it as cosmological.
Unfortunately, when one starts to talk about the Universe, people seem to want to talk about It's "creator"...which doesn't include me because I speculate that the Universe is an Entity ITSELF...not created by a Great Outsider.
If the Universe were conscious AND responsive to all of its parts, would it be a philosophical discussion to ask how that might be "useful"?
And, if there were COHESIVE CHUNKS OF CONSCIOUSNESS that reincarnate as a function of evolution, could be not call it a "spirit" -- for want of a better name. This would make the discussion about the "afterlife of the grub" a SPIRITUAL one...not a "religious" one, which is something else, I think.
Iacchus32
Apr12-03, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly, and if one doesn't die, then there can be no period that is "after life". There may be a resurrection (my opinion on that is irrelevant, and that is a Religious issue anyway), but that doesn't mean that the grub needs to be "resurrected" from it's transforming state (within the cocoon). It doesn't need to be resurrected because it's not dead.
Then what do you call the "dead corpse" you leave behind? Like I said, there is an "afterlife" for grubs, and they too leave behind an "empty shell" or husk.
Originally posted by Mentat
This issue is entirely religious, and has no place in the Philosophy Forum. I mean no offense to you at all. It's just that the reason I don't post in the Religion Forum is that I made an agreement with someone that I wouldn't discuss Religious isssues, on the PFs. The person I made the agreement with doesn't mind that sometimes the topics get religious, and I keep resonding, so long as the mentors move it quickly, and I don't respond to it, once it's in the Religion Forum.
If I didn't mention God would it make a difference? Besides, what's the difference between that and what saying I'm below?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but where does this complex energy pattern (or field) which is so attached to our body, what we would call "our essence" (or soul), go when we die? Even something as inanimate as a piece of (dead) wood has to burn before it gives off its essence. But with something which is alive, like us, we expire just like that. Does our consciousness just evaporate into thin air? Of course you could cremate the "dead corpse" any time afterwards, but that would be comparable to burning a piece of dead wood? I mean what gives?
Besides, where do we go when we dream?
I'm saying the same thing here! Ooops, I did mention "soul" now didn't I? Better replace that with "psyche" ... Hmm... if you don't wish for me to say things like "God," then don't evoke me until you finally get me to do so (which, it seems you were trying to do).
M. Gaspar
Apr12-03, 12:18 AM
Where does "our essence" go?
Well, if our essense/spirit/soul/whatever were a COHESIVE CHUNCH OF CONSCIOUSNESS, might it not STAY cohesive when the body falls apart?
Meanwhile, can we recognize a distinction between "religion" and "spirituality"?
And are these "off topic" when discussing whether the Universe is conscious?
Iacchus32
Apr12-03, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If the Universe were conscious AND responsive to all of its parts, would it be a philosophical discussion to ask how that might be "useful"?
But what does conciousness imply? Does it imply "a will," such as with us humans? If so, then wouldn't it also imply the need for a greater consciousness and a greater will, in order to rule over ours? Or else we would be ruled over by that which is beneath us, in which case I don't think consciousness is possible, do you?
Doesn't consciousness imply a hierchy or arrangement of things, by which everything is ruled from the highest sense to the lowest sense? If not, then guess what, we're no better than grubs, the lowliest creatures on earth!
In which case I should ask again, What do grubs know?
Iacchus32
Apr12-03, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Where does "our essence" go?
Well, if our essense/spirit/soul/whatever were a COHESIVE CHUNCH OF CONSCIOUSNESS, might it not STAY cohesive when the body falls apart?
It gives us a reason to wonder now doesn't it?
M. Gaspar
Apr12-03, 11:58 AM
What's with your need to be "ruled"?
Yes, I believe there is the "Primary Will" of the Universe, which is "simply" to have an Experience. Of course, the Experience is rather complex, consisting of the experience of Everything That Is.
As to consciousness, I believe that "collective thought" comprises the "network" through which the Universe perceives, interprets, learns and responds (among other things)...and this could be said to be the Mind of the Universe.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is it a philosophical, religious, spiritual or cosmological discussion that asks whether the Universe is conscious?
We know that there is consciousness "in" the Universe...so I think of it as cosmological.
Unfortunately, when one starts to talk about the Universe, people seem to want to talk about It's "creator"...which doesn't include me because I speculate that the Universe is an Entity ITSELF...not created by a Great Outsider.
If the Universe were conscious AND responsive to all of its parts, would it be a philosophical discussion to ask how that might be "useful"?
And, if there were COHESIVE CHUNKS OF CONSCIOUSNESS that reincarnate as a function of evolution, could be not call it a "spirit" -- for want of a better name. This would make the discussion about the "afterlife of the grub" a SPIRITUAL one...not a "religious" one, which is something else, I think.
I didn't say that the discussion of a conscious universe was religious. If I thought so, I wouldn't be participating. It was Iacchus' posts that were religiously inclined (I find it hard to believe, if you say you hadn't noticed).
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what do you call the "dead corpse" you leave behind? Like I said, there is an "afterlife" for grubs, and they too leave behind an "empty shell" or husk.
I don't leave anything behind. I cease existing at death. Ecclesiastes 9:5 (since you seem to be fond of scripture) - "The living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all". I'm not leaving my carcass behind, I (my conscious self) cease existing, the carcass will eventually also cease existing.
If I didn't mention God would it make a difference? Besides, what's the difference between that and what saying I'm below?
Yes it does make a difference that you mention God. Discussions about gods, Gods, souls, etc belong in the Religion Forum. Lifegazer sneaks by, by making his "God" a non-entity - and using only rationalization (as he sees it) to prove the existence of this being. Aside from that, the Mentors have made it clear that all discussions about God, or Religion belong in the Religion Forum.
I'm saying the same thing here! Ooops, I did mention "soul" now didn't I? Better replace that with "psyche" ... Hmm... if you don't wish for me to say things like "God," then don't evoke me until you finally get me to do so (which, it seems you were trying to do).
I'm not trying to get you to mention God. In fact, I am trying to stop you from doing so. Your philosophy is so based on the existence of a god, that - in getting any deeper into your reasoning - you will inevitably mention god.
Iacchus32
Apr12-03, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What's with your need to be "ruled"?
Just as "my consciousness" rules over my environment (either it does it or doesn't), then to the degree that you speak of a greater consciousness (I'm suggesting consciousness "presides" over everything), by which mine is only a "tiny sliver," then it too must be endowed, at the very least, with the same capacity of thought I have (if not way beyond). Consider the slice of bread taken from the overall loaf. Don't the slice and the loaf have the same overall properties? Therefore, it only makes sense that there be a higher consciousness, "or entity," that rules above mine.
Mentat: This is an entirely rational statement. It's still within context of the original thread. I don't see how you (or anyone else) can take offense to it?
Now if I were to blatantly mention God throughout my posts, which I don't, then you might have reason to take issue with me.
Consider the slice of bread taken from the overall loaf. Don't the slice and the loaf have the same overall properties? Therefore, it only makes sense that there be a higher consciousness, "or entity," that rules above mine.
No, for what you are doing is instead saying that the loaf of bread itself is a manifestation of a still larger chunk of breadiness. The fact that such a relationship exists once is no implication there must be an infinite chain of them....
But what does conciousness imply? Does it imply "a will," such as with us humans?
No it does not. It implies knowledge, awareness of surroundings, of self. It does not imply an unifying will to action. A spectator is also conscious, but needs not have an universal will and purpose.
Iacchus32
Apr12-03, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
No, for what you are doing is instead saying that the loaf of bread itself is a manifestation of a still larger chunk of breadiness. The fact that such a relationship exists once is no implication there must be an infinite chain of them....
No, I'm saying "my consciousness" is a slice of the overall loaf, which is the "greater consciousness" as a whole.
Originally posted by FZ+
No it does not. It implies knowledge, awareness of surroundings, of self. It does not imply an unifying will to action. A spectator is also conscious, but needs not have an universal will and purpose.
Are you saying that as part of your consciousness, you don't have a will that "acts" in accord with what it perceives? Then what the heck are you doing typing at that damn keyboard then? Is it because you wish (which is of the will) to participate? Or, would you rather (which is also of the will) be a spectator?
Iacchus32
Apr12-03, 08:12 PM
I don't leave anything behind. I cease existing at death. Ecclesiastes 9:5 (since you seem to be fond of scripture) - "The living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all". I'm not leaving my carcass behind, I (my conscious self) cease existing, the carcass will eventually also cease existing.
I don't doubt that this could have been the "prevailing view" at the time, but if anything, it highlights the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, which speaks of nothing but "an afterlife."
No, I'm saying "my consciousness" is a slice of the overall loaf, which is the "greater consciousness" as a whole.
Nope. It means your example is ambiguous. By the mere observation of consciousness does not immediately make sense that a higher consciousness would exist above it.
Are you saying that as part of your consciousness, you don't have a will that "acts" in accord with what it perceives? Then what the heck are you doing typing at that damn keyboard then? Is it because you wish (which is of the will) to participate? Or, would you rather (which is also of the will) be a spectator?
That is not relevant to the discussion. I merely saying that one does not imply the other. Consciousness does not imply a will. Mere knowing does not neccessitate intention. A will is an optional extra, in a way. And yes, there is such a thing as an unwilling spectator.
But I might argue that I believe that all actions are due to our experiences and instincts. The fact I am typing is not because I want to, but because the sum of my memories and experiences compell me to. If my life has been different, I would not be. So my choice is really made for me. If your life has been different, you would not be disagreeing with me....
Iacchus32
Apr12-03, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
Nope. It means your example is ambiguous. By the mere observation of consciousness does not immediately make sense that a higher consciousness would exist above it.
Either there's a greater consciousness to the Universe as a whole or there isn't, and that's what we're discussing here.
Originally posted by FZ+
That is not relevant to the discussion. I merely saying that one does not imply the other. Consciousness does not imply a will. Mere knowing does not neccessitate intention. A will is an optional extra, in a way. And yes, there is such a thing as an unwilling spectator.
I will myself to do things all the time and that's a "conscious act."
An unwilling spectator? Do you mean someone "forces you" against your will to spectate? Usually most people spectate out of a "conscious choice" to do so. You still have to put yourself (which is of the will) in the position to where you're going to watch.
Originally posted by FZ+
But I might argue that I believe that all actions are due to our experiences and instincts. The fact I am typing is not because I want to, but because the sum of my memories and experiences compell me to. If my life has been different, I would not be. So my choice is really made for me. If your life has been different, you would not be disagreeing with me....
We're just preprogrammed machines then right?
RuroumiKenshin
Apr12-03, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
But fire is a chemical reaction, and it isn't alive.
But there isn't a definition for alive. I know there is one, created by scientists for a standard classification. But there isn't a universal definition, and you can't really classify anything as alive universally.
can the essence of life (life/living things, in the context of standard definitions) be considered alive, using standard, scientific definitions?
M. Gaspar
Apr13-03, 12:20 AM
...We are part of the main."
Not an exact quote, and I don't have a clue where it's from, however...
...I think the "loaf of bread" analogy is a good one.
If the Universe, through natural processes, gave rise to physicality, might It not, through natural processes, give rise to discrete chunks of cohesive consciousness?
Like the stars (and everything else) which are formed from inherent ingrediants and forces, might not consciousness "accrete" in much the same way?
"Souls" -- for want of a better word -- would be "made of " the same "stuff" from which it has risen...
...and, because it may be made of ENERGY -- not "matter" -- it might tend to hold together after the body falls away.
As to WILL...true, it doesn't HAVE TO BE part of consciousness, I guess, but there would be very little point to BEING conscious if you -- or the Universe -- weren't going to DO something with it!
I think the Universe has WILL because I speculate that INTENTION is what ACTS UPON the randomness that's part of the System of the Universe, causing certain potentialities to manifest instead of others.
The Universe does this on a LARGE scale...and we do it on a small scale...but we DO cause "things" to "happen" via our INTENTIONS...I think. And we do so by "tapping into" the "network" of which we are a part: the collective MIND.
An unwilling spectator? Do you mean someone "forces you" against your will to spectate? Usually most people spectate out of a "conscious choice" to do so. You still have to put yourself (which is of the will) in the position to where you're going to watch.
What if you are born in that position, and lack the will to leave? You do not need to want to watch...
We're just preprogrammed machines then right?
In a way. Self-programmed is more like it.
Like the stars (and everything else) which are formed from inherent ingrediants and forces, might not consciousness "accrete" in much the same way?
What is consciousness? It seems to me to be an abstract, subjective concept. Can you justifiably apply the laws of physics to the nebulous state of the mind? And how do you identify what is conscious and what is not?
But that's playing the devil's advocate a bit. Personally, I believe consciousness to be a label man place subjectively, in relation to himself. Whatever behaves in a similar way to man is "conscious". Whatever behaves in a different way to man is less "conscious". In this way, everything is conscious to a degree. Really, this is the only definition we apply, we can apply. What makes you believe me to be conscious? Because I look like you, talk like you and most importantly react like you.
And life is similar. The reason why we consider ourselves to be the highest form of life is because this is our only yardstick. The rest we list in terms of complexity and similarity to us. Until we understood fire, nothing stopped us from considering fire a manifestation of life.
As to WILL...true, it doesn't HAVE TO BE part of consciousness, I guess, but there would be very little point to BEING conscious if you -- or the Universe -- weren't going to DO something with it!
Since when did everything have to have a point? In an overview, the majority of people who have lived did nothing with their consciousness, save add a bit of carbon dioxide perhaps. (and that is also done subconciously)
I think the Universe has WILL because I speculate that INTENTION is what ACTS UPON the randomness that's part of the System of the Universe, causing certain potentialities to manifest instead of others.
Hmm... like? Isn't the universe moving towards entropy and disorder, rather than the reverse?
quantumcarl
Apr13-03, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
The universe is growing a brain in its formations of life and conscious beings.
As the universe grows more complex... each conscious being becomes a neuron of the universal brain. There is a propensity for this thin layer of living, conscious beings to communicate with one another across various distances and in various areas of the universe.
This communication is growing in complexity and in frequency.
This could be called the universal consciousness. Where the universe begins to create a neural network within its otherwise inanimate constitution.
This model is based on the book titled "The Global Brain" (author?).
In this book it is easily demonstrated how the evolution of the earth is a close match to the evolution of the brain........ starting with mud... then through many changes and stages to a position where the mud has grown a conscious brain... and comunicates with mud from around the planet.
The brain produces technological advances to facilitate this communication between conscious beings... like telegraph... like fiber optics.... television... you get the picture!
This model when extrapolated on to the universal condition tends to show the direction of "inanimate substance" and that it is toward a condition of "Universal Consciousness".
wuliheron
Apr13-03, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
Statistically of course. Essentially it is QM that first brought up this issue in the form of the wave/particle duality and Indeterminacy and everything in QM is studied statistically. Do photons actually "decide" which hole to go through in the double slit experiment?
In recent years this idea of everything being consciousness or awareness has lost some of its support to the concept of Quantum Decoherence which postulates that the collapse of the wave function is due to environmental noise rather than a conscious observer. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it may hesitate for a few femto seconds to make a noise and become a reality, but no longer than that. At least, that is the implications of modern experiments.
However, this still does not rule out the idea that everything might ultimately be consciousness. All it does is make it a little less likely in the eyes of physicists. Like a lot of explanations for Quantum Weirdness, this one begs for a Theory of Everything to help settle the issue. Even then, it may require centuries before the statistical experimental evidence can pretty much make a stand on the issue.
nevagil
Apr13-03, 03:08 PM
Humans are like a brain for the universe, but only slightly because humans are still going to care about themselves and not care about all the parts of the universe. A human displays consciousness because he cares and does things to protect and pleasure every part of himself, his brain cares about every part of his body. But humans won't be a similiar brain for the universe because we will only care about the parts of the universe that affect us. If some outer region of the universe is gonna break off or die, we won't care, so it seems like the universe may not be conscious in that regard. It, the universe may be more like a tree or plant that lives but doesn't really display consciousness to the extent that a human seems conscious. Although the similiarities of comparing the universe to a human do seem so high that maybe in the future the universe will behave as a conscious entity and not a vegetable-like existence.
The discussions about afterlife seem to get too religion-like so I'm gonna skip speculating about that.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
We're just preprogrammed machines then right?
Right. Even if we have free will, we are still pre-programmed (by genetics) machines (in that we have different parts that work together, to accomplish tasks - that's what a "machine" is).
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
But there isn't a definition for alive. I know there is one, created by scientists for a standard classification. But there isn't a universal definition, and you can't really classify anything as alive universally.
can the essence of life (life/living things, in the context of standard definitions) be considered alive, using standard, scientific definitions?
Well, I mentioned one of the requirements for being considered (by biologists) to be alive. The universe doesn't create more of itself. It also doesn't take in nourishement/energy from any external source. It doesn't adapt to it's surroundings. It doesn't have an orderly structure. And it isn't composed of cells, which are considered the building blocks of life.
These requirements of living things are not necessarily right, they're just how my Biology book would have you believe. However, the universe (as a whole) doesn't meet any of them.
Though I agree, I like to say that this analysis is however open to interpretation...
The universe doesn't create more of itself.
One of the present (and unconfirmed) theories, F-theory (based on M theory) proposes that big bangs are caused by branes impacting to create new ones. So universes can kinda reproduce.
It also doesn't take in nourishement/energy from any external source.
Additionally, M-theory proposes that things like gravity can be seeping in from another universe. Whether that is taking in energy is another question. But even then, living things don't eat all the time. The universe can be considered to be a stage between feeding, where it digests matter (mostly hydrogen) for energy.
It doesn't adapt to it's surroundings.
Well... yeah.
It doesn't have an orderly structure.
Galaxies and things like that do present some degree of order. But there is no apparent overall one. But is that really a criteria for life?
And it isn't composed of cells, which are considered the building blocks of life.
Well, individual planets and stars can be considered to be analogies of cells, each producing it's own energy. But the link is tenuous. Is a ball of fusing gas alive is rather similar to the old is fire alive problem.
I have such a problem with people's speaking of more than one universe. It's like saying that there's everything, and then saying that there's something else, besides.
Otherwise, I can't see anything wrong with the points you bring up in your post. So, I agree, the univese does meet some of the criteria.
Iacchus32
Apr13-03, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Right. Even if we have free will, we are still pre-programmed (by genetics) machines (in that we have different parts that work together, to accomplish tasks - that's what a "machine" is).
Why does my "psyche" find this so abhorrent? ... abhorrence being a sign that I have a will be the way.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why does my "psyche" find this so abhorrent? Abhorrence being a sign that I have a will be the way.
You find it abhorrent because you have continued existing in a certain way that predisposes you toward abbhorence of such a concept (by FZ+'s reasoning).
Abhorrence does not indicate will. It indicates that you are predisposed toward disliking something, and that if you had will, it would be severly limited by this predisposition.
Iacchus32
Apr13-03, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Abhorrence does not indicate will. It indicates that you are predisposed toward disliking something, and that if you had will, it would be severly limited by this predisposition.
If I dislike something, "presently," then that requires that I act upon it, and that would be of "the will."
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If I dislike something, "presently," then that requires that I act upon it, and that would be of "the will."
Disliking something does not require that you act on it. It only allows for it.
Besides, acting on something doesn't require will.
Iacchus32
Apr13-03, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Disliking something does not require that you act on it. It only allows for it.
Besides, acting on something doesn't require will.
In other words you have been so "pre-programmed" by the educational system that you don't believe in "free will." What a despicable thing to do!
quantumcarl
Apr13-03, 06:09 PM
Someone, please define "consciousness"!
Then define "intellegence".
Then define "memory".
In what way are these three terms/concepts interrelated?
We can say that any entity in existance is a form of information storage. A broken piece of obsidian holds inumerable bits of information. It only takes an observant life-form to interpret the information into data that may help said life-form to understand and survive its environment better.
A fire stores the information that has to do with heat, combustion, light, fuel, cooling, disintegration and a number of other chemical and electromagnetic interactions. Fire is representative of these and other stored bits of information.
The fuel for fire is another, large collection of information that lends its self to the fire and its exhibition of flame, heat, light and disintegration... etc...
One could see all these combinant and re-combinant bits of information and the dynamics of their interactions as a form of consciousness and as a form of communications between elements.
But... it can only be "concsiousness" when it is labeled as such by humans or some other highly evolved form of life which sports its own language and information storage/disemination system... as well as a concept of it own that it defines as "concsiousness".
One is not going to elicit a response from a flame that suggests it is conscious of your presence. Until it happens to latch onto your pant leg, perhaps.
wuliheron
Apr13-03, 06:21 PM
Someone, please define "consciousness"!
I'd rather try to describe color to a blind man (LOL). Either you know you are conscious or you don't as far as I am concerned. :0)
But how then do you classify someone else as conscious?
wuliheron
Apr13-03, 07:05 PM
LOL, often I don't! I either assume they are conscious or wait to see if their behavior indicates they are or not. :0)
nevagil
Apr13-03, 10:58 PM
Some people are almost like plants and vegetables, that grow toward the sun but don't show much free will or decisions about future directions. Is a person conscious if they react in the same predictable way? Example, a person whose hormones push them to rage all the time, a plant grows toward the sun all the time. Hormones make some people more prone to certain reactions. A lot of us are stubborn, obsessive almost programmed to certain reactions.
We can't see things a rattlesnake can see, so maybe we seem unconscious at times to a snake. We don't react to something we don't notice but the snake sees the heat image in the dark and does react to it. We may seem unconscious in that regard to the snake.
Just watch a debate on TV and ask yourself if anyone changed their mind on that show after hearing the sides. It seems to me that everyone on those shows have the same opinion at the end of the show as they had at the beginning, it is like the democrats and the republicans at a debate, it is like the different religions at a debate, it is like I don't know, I think my brain cells ran out, bye for now.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr13-03, 11:37 PM
Mentat, I have repeatedly brought up the possibility that this could be a sub universe (as it corresponds with p-branes and the shadow universe), and this all evidently implies that there could be an "outside" of this universe. so...
It doesn't adapt to it's surroundings
what surroundings? We can't prove there are surroundings and vice versa. Even if there where surroundings, how are we going to come to the conlusion that the universe is adapting to its suroundings?
RuroumiKenshin
Apr13-03, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
But how then do you classify someone else as conscious?
If that being is aware of their surroundings and has a concept of time passing.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr13-03, 11:42 PM
Someone, please define "consciousness"!
Awareness.
Then define "intellegence".
I guess you could say intellegence is the creation of new brain tissue/ branch-thingies (i can't quite remember what they were called...i know it....) on neurons.
Then define "memory".
Memory is yet to be defined acuratly. Anyhow, I guess it could be defined as a collection of past references.
nevagil
Apr14-03, 12:27 AM
I forgot the definition of memory(someone had to say it)
Hmmm, dendrites & axions connecting stuff helps intelligence but hopefully the quality of a choice being made determines intelligence because that seems to be a better level of consciousness, so memory helps that too especially for those of us that learn the hard way (after sumthin bad happens instead of forseeing the possiblity).
If there is stuff outside this universe then maybe this universe is just a little cell-like part of a bigger system. Afterall there does seem to be a pattern of anything and everything is part of something bigger.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr14-03, 12:29 AM
what do you mean by choice and intelligence?
nevagil
Apr14-03, 12:34 AM
Maybe our rocketships and space shuttles and satellites are like the dendrites and axions that connect neurons. Rocketships and satellites may connect and conduct intelligence or actions to other parts of the universe, making the universe a bit like a big brain.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr14-03, 12:58 AM
Yes, like a big brain with no central unit (purpose). I wouldn't say that the sattelites and stuff make the universelike a big brain, but rather the Earth like a big, disoriented brain.
What characteristics make something a brain? Does disorientation, or rather, division (like how the earth is filled with divided perspectives) account to its definition?
quantumcarl
Apr14-03, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
But how then do you classify someone else as conscious?
That is the question... especially in philosophical sense.
In what capacity do I find myself that gives me the authority to determine whether or not someone or something is conscious or not?
As an self-directing opinion or calculation I can see the usefulness of such a determination. But to impose the opinion elsewhere would be precarious and no doubt the wrong thing to do.
I can summon the sentiment that rocks are concsious... they react to conditions (contracting in cold, expanding in heat, disintegrating or "evolving" into sand... offering support for life as soil... becoming life itself... etc...)
These interactions can appear as a form of communication between elements. The heat says "speed up rock electrons" and they do.
Not any different than how the sight of a beautiful woman will set into motion the endocrine system of a hetrosexual male.
The hetrosexual male gives the observer the impression that he is "aware" of the beautiful woman's presence. However... the observer has no understanding of what might be going on in the hetrosexual male's head. The male may not be aware of the woman. He may only be interested in her shoes. That may be all that set his hormones raging.
So, a reaction does not hold the key to determining awareness or consciousness. We see reactions everyday. In the wind, the sun, throughout the universe. Does this imply a universal consciousness?
I don't think so.
Consciousness is a form of communication.
It may only be an observation of a non-conscious state by a conscious state... but that is still a form of communication. In other words there has to be an INTERPRETATION made by the conscious entity and the entity makes a "concsious decision" with regard to its observation.
This "conscious decision" to observe a phenomenon results in an awareness of the phenomenon. This awareness may be correct in its understanding and may not be correct... but it is an awareness of the phenomenon.
This is when there is another conscious decision to investigate further into the details of the phenomenon and expand on the original awareness the observer gained in their first attempt.
This sort of inquiry and exploration creates a fuller understanding and a "higher form of consciousness" about any given phenomenon.
This sort of inquiry and exploration is what supports the growth of the universal brain... with each conscious individual involved in it acting as repositories of information or... neurons... all being a part of the universal neuronal network.
So far, the inhabitants of earth seem to be sequestered to the cerebellum or brain stem... we may only be preforming autonomic functions with regard to the consciousness of the universe.
The really heady stuff might be going on further beyond us... in the outer "cortex" of this universe. Rarely do the neurons of that area need to communicate with the drone neurons of the brain stem or corpus colosum.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words you have been so "pre-programmed" by the educational system that you don't believe in "free will." What a despicable thing to do!
I never said that I didn't believe in free will. You should know by now, that I don't have to believe something, in order to argue for or against it. Besides, that's not the point. The point is that you really are stuck on the belief that there is free will, and that you are not open to any argument against that belief.
LOL, often I don't! I either assume they are conscious or wait to see if their behavior indicates they are or not. :0)
This is part of my point. While we may say that consciousness, awareness etc are spiritual and immaterial ideas, in reality our internal definition of it, the one that we really use, is based solely on material resemblence and behaviour pattern matching.
Majinvegeta...
If that being is aware of their surroundings and has a concept of time passing.
How can you tell that? How do you know someone is aware of their surroundings, and has a concept of time passing?
carl:
Consciousness is a form of communication.
I don't think that is the right word for what you are talking about. But I'll let it pass...
Let's see, you classify consciousness as a sense of enquiry... kinda. Acknowledgement of external data. But then how can you apply this to the universe? (the subject of this thread) How can the universe enquire, when there is (supposedly) only itself?
wuliheron
Apr14-03, 03:18 PM
This is part of my point. While we may say that consciousness, awareness etc are spiritual and immaterial ideas, in reality our internal definition of it, the one that we really use, is based solely on material resemblence and behaviour pattern matching.
Not just behavior matching, but intuition and just plain knowledge as well.
. Knowing
Without taking a step outdoors
You know the whole world;
Without taking a peep out the window
You know the color of the sky.
The more you abstract your experiences,
The less you know.
The sage wanders without unhappiness,
Sees without having to look,
Accomplishes without acting.
Iacchus32
Apr14-03, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words you have been so "pre-programmed" by the educational system that you don't believe in "free will." What a despicable thing to do!
Originally posted by Mentat
I never said that I didn't believe in free will. You should know by now, that I don't have to believe something, in order to argue for or against it. Besides, that's not the point. The point is that you really are stuck on the belief that there is free will, and that you are not open to any argument against that belief.
What I believe and what I do with what believe, which is of "my will" (i.e., that which is done voluntarily and hence "freely") are integral, you can't have one without the other. This is what makes us human, as opposed to just machines, which don't have the "conscious ability" to choose.
And sometimes you see, we just have to vote "our conscience" (voting, which is again of "the will"), rather than follow the crowd.
This I think may be the problem with so many of you scientific types, you keep trying to take free will out of the equation, in order to keep your theories nice and neet and tidy. Too bad, it's not going to happen!
My God! ... I hope Big Brother didn't hear that!
quantumcarl
Apr14-03, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
carl:
I don't think that is the right word for what you are talking about. But I'll let it pass...
Let's see, you classify consciousness as a sense of enquiry... kinda. Acknowledgement of external data. But then how can you apply this to the universe? (the subject of this thread) How can the universe enquire, when there is (supposedly) only itself?
The universe has evolved life forms to do the enquiring.
It is analogous to this earth developing life forms that have evolved to the point where they possess an enquiring concsiousness. That life form is, for the moment, the human species. The earth is developing a thin layer of collective consciousness via the life forms it supports.
We could say that the interactions and reactions seen throughout the universe are the sub-concsious of the universe. When this universal sub-concsious produces results like life forms with brains... the universe has developed the universe's concsiousness.
Yet, you suggest there is a spiritual or metaphyscial aspect to all of this and I maintain that it is ALL PHYSICS... ALL THE TIME! [6)]
Damn you stole my philosophy. I am just pre-empting any lifegazer style arguments that consciousness cannot be described in spiritual forms...
But anyway... do you then imply that consciousness may simply be introspective? Like we can only enquire within the universe? How do you then know that rocks are not lost in self-contemplation? Seriously?
M. Gaspar
Apr14-03, 11:07 PM
...that everything -- EVERYTHING -- has at least a "kernal" of consciousness "in" it...including elementary particles, rocks, bugs, turkeys, humans, planets, stars and galaxies.
The more complex the "entity"...the more complex the "consciousness". Hence, the Universe which, by SOME definitions, is Everything That Is -- has the collective consciousness (not a new term, I grant you) of Everything That Is.
I speculate that, at the time of the "Big Bang" -- consciousness of the "former" Universe (actually, It's previous incarnation!) -- anyway, the collective conciousness of the singularity that burst forth, also spewed its consciousness apart.
And, just as matter accretes in the PHYSICAL Universe, consciousness accretes in the non-physical Universe, through forces similar to "gravity" but, of course, unnamed.
All this, by the way, would be a NATURAL PROCESS of the Universe in every of It's incarnations -- that physicality would accrete to provide a "stage" for consciousness to exert its will...and experience its results!
Emotions are a form of "currency" that I'm too tired to describe.
Iacchus32
Apr14-03, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Emotions are a form of "currency" that I'm too tired to describe.
Don't emotions belie "the experience" itself?
nevagil
Apr14-03, 11:58 PM
___________________________
Yet, you suggest there is a spiritual or metaphyscial aspect to all of this and I maintain that it is ALL PHYSICS... ALL THE TIME!
_______________________________________________
I really don't see the spiritual, metaphysical, or "physics all the time" beliefs with any confidence at all. The spiritual and metaphysical aspect can't be proved(please don't give me religion quotes).
And the "PHYSICS ALL THE TIME" aspect doesn't hold up for me, although I've only had one logic class and 1yr of physics. How can someone claim it is only physics when we have questions like "what is at the end of the universe?" It can't be answered logically. What is logical about an answer like "oh, it is expanding and contracting, or growing, etc". Because it still begs the question "whats pass the end, or whats at the end of whatever is outside it? Same illogical physics answers to when was the beginning?(It begs the question "what was befor that?")
If the universe is conscious does it know the answers to those question?
By the way, we have observed enough rocks to say they are not conscious. This ain't spiritual geology 101. If we can't agree on that, we will have trouble getting anywhere.
When a class called spiritual botany 101 evolves I think they'll say plants are not conscious also. Boy, would I be embarassed if a tree just falls on me now.
Iacchus32
Apr15-03, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by nevagil
By the way, we have observed enough rocks to say they are not conscious. This ain't spiritual geology 101. If we can't agree on that, we will have trouble getting anywhere.
And yet there is an energy field (or pattern) which defines it as a rock. And lets say you had a dream about a rock? How do you know that what you're dreaming about is not somehow subconsciously connected (through its energy field) to an actual rock? In which case it might be reasonable to "assume" that rocks exist within the realm of the "collective unconscious." And, while they may not be cognizant as rocks, they still remain a part of "consciousness" as a whole.
Which brings up another question. How does one engery field react towards another, when say, two people get together and begin to socialize? If you could observe their energy fields without the physical mass, what would that entail? This is also the "very essence" by the way, which leaves the body almost immediately after death.
M. Gaspar
Apr15-03, 07:22 AM
...is the "matter" is actually "bound-up ENERGY".
Thus, the Universe is ALL ENERY ALL THE TIME!
Chances are, CONSCIOUSNESS is ENERGY, TOO. Thus, the Universe may be "simply" ONE BIG VIBRATION! (And the Grand Unified Field might be the electromagnetic spectrum -- to include wavelengths undiscovered, or unmeasurable -- as yet.)
This would account for the "interconnectedness" that some of us like to believe in.
As to "eternity" and "infinity" ... let us just just thank Newton for his "conservation of energy" idea.
Perhaps, as I have speculated, the Universe is an "Eternal Entity of Energy" that's responsive to all of Its parts...enjoying INFINITE INCARNATIONS via the expansion/implosion model.
pelastration
Apr15-03, 08:17 AM
Correct Gaspar,
the universe and matter is 'bound-up ENERGY'.
That way I said (on that other forum):
"God is often refered as behind the VOID.
Now the void itself can be seen as an unbreakable membrane.
That membrane can be folded by a special universal manifold in such as way that the membrane is still in EVERY subdivision.
It seems a paradox but I show this very simple manifold on my website: http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology. (16 pages)
Once you understand it you will know that we are all tuned ... and that we are linked to the original force (the VOID is in you!).)
So the big game: incarnations, incarnations, .... (restructered nothingness) with level shifts (mass -> energy -> mass, ....) and still interconnected
quantumcarl
Apr15-03, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
Damn you stole my philosophy. I am just pre-empting any lifegazer style arguments that consciousness cannot be described in spiritual forms...
But anyway... do you then imply that consciousness may simply be introspective? Like we can only enquire within the universe? How do you then know that rocks are not lost in self-contemplation? Seriously?
FZ+ dude... as far as I know... we don't know anything.
We are simply able to observe the universe... and observe our collection of observations. We have a long way to go before we know whether rocks, minerals, energy etc... are the culmination or the headwaters of evolution.
I reckon we must first learn the fine art of detachment... to understand better the function and state of all things.
When we can remove our "selves" from the picture... the picture is much more accessable and clearer.
In order to acheive this... detachment... it is required that we understand ourselves to the fullest degree... then let go. Then start on the next project. Like lichen... or algae... or binary systems... or analog intellect... these will be easy to understand after examining the physics of our own condition(s).
A good step in the direction of all of these proposals is in the direction of the nearest pub!
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Mentat, I have repeatedly brought up the possibility that this could be a sub universe (as it corresponds with p-branes and the shadow universe), and this all evidently implies that there could be an "outside" of this universe. so...
The word "sub-universe" really has no meaning. If you mean that there is space between the first coherent chunk of matter (the known universe) and the next, and that there are many of these, then I agree that it is possible. However, there cannot be more than one set of "everything".
what surroundings? We can't prove there are surroundings and vice versa. Even if there where surroundings, how are we going to come to the conlusion that the universe is adapting to its suroundings?
I said it wasn't adapting to it's surroundings. It doesn't have surroundings.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr17-03, 01:09 AM
fz....
How can you tell that? How do you know someone is aware of their surroundings, and has a concept of time passing?
Well, you could of course use special eqipment to test the brain waves. on a lighter note: ask the person what time it is!!(that's supposed to be funny..haha)
OR...
the first question we need to answer before answering your most commendable question is: at what point do we experience unconsciousness? the object of this question is to sort out the points of what the premises which our consciousness is based upon.
IOW, defining consciousness. what do you think? (i could really use some ideas here)
nevagil
Apr17-03, 01:57 AM
Consciousness= awareness
When we sleep we ain't consciousness. That can be argued with word games but unless there is more to it than word games, why argue it?
IOW ? I new here, whats IOW?
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
fz....
Well, you could of course use special eqipment to test the brain waves. on a lighter note: ask the person what time it is!!(that's supposed to be funny..haha)
OR...
the first question we need to answer before answering your most commendable question is: at what point do we experience unconsciousness? the object of this question is to sort out the points of what the premises which our consciousness is based upon.
IOW, defining consciousness. what do you think? (i could really use some ideas here)
Well, actually you don't ever "experience unconsciousness". If you experience something, you do so consciously.
Originally posted by nevagil
Consciousness= awareness
When we sleep we ain't consciousness. That can be argued with word games but unless there is more to it than word games, why argue it?
IOW ? I new here, whats IOW?
In Other Words.
Well, you could of course use special eqipment to test the brain waves. on a lighter note: ask the person what time it is!!(that's supposed to be funny..haha)
That won't work. If you have the appropiate view, you can easily compare the brain waves of a human with, say, the cpu activity of a computer and say that since computers are unconscious, so if the human. And you can never distinguish a conscious response from a programmed, albeit with great complexity, one.
defining consciousness. what do you think? (i could really use some ideas here)
My feelings are that we use TWO, not one definition of consciousness. One is the philosophical one, denote what we feel SHOULD be true. This is the one you have, based on perception, so on and so forth. But while technically this is the correct definition, in reality, we never employ it.
The second definition we use is based fully on materialism. That is, conscious is that state where something behaves as a human would do. As I, the observer would do. The more different the behaviour, the less conscious it is. Hence we easily construct the ladder of life, and put us on top. Realistically speaking, it is the only open option. And hence this leads to a fundamental materialistic assumption - all humans are conscious, and whatever sounds like a human, is human. Philosophically, it does not have any real grounds if we think of consciousness as a spiritual entity. But that's what we really do, even subconsciously.
M. Gaspar
Apr17-03, 07:36 PM
I'm afraid I couldn't get to your website to immerse myself in your speculations, so I can only base a reply to you on the content of your last posting on this thread:
First, I have to tell you that the word "Void" doesn't seem to be applicable to ANYTHING.
According to the dictionary at hand, a "void" : contains no matter; is empty; unoccupied; vacant; devoid; lacking (as in void of understanding); ineffective; useless; having no legal force or validity; null; an empty space; a vacuum; an open space or break in continuity; gap; a feeling or state of emptiness; loneliness; loss. I won't go into the word as a verb.
So, my first question is: is the Universe, in your theory, the void or the membrane?
When you say "God is the behind the void", I have no idea what you mean. Nor do I know what you mean when you say the "the void itself is a membrane".
Apparently, you have a model that satifies you. I invite you to clarify it BRIEFLY here...so that I can shoot it down.[;)]
Tho I will say that I am pleased that your model brings you to the conclusions that: (a) the Universe reincarnates; and (b) the there's a little of the "whole" in Everything.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr18-03, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
My feelings are that we use TWO, not one definition of consciousness. One is the philosophical one, denote what we feel SHOULD be true. This is the one you have, based on perception, so on and so forth. But while technically this is the correct definition, in reality, we never employ it.
The second definition we use is based fully on materialism. That is, conscious is that state where something behaves as a human would do. As I, the observer would do. The more different the behaviour, the less conscious it is. Hence we easily construct the ladder of life, and put us on top. Realistically speaking, it is the only open option. And hence this leads to a fundamental materialistic assumption - all humans are conscious, and whatever sounds like a human, is human. Philosophically, it does not have any real grounds if we think of consciousness as a spiritual entity. But that's what we really do, even subconsciously.
That definition seems to be one that is prejudicial to other animals. Animals, many of which do not act like most humans are obviously conscious of their surroundings (esp. prairie dogs). My definition of consciousness is "Awareness". Now, we need to contemplate what makes a person aware, that is to say, what makes a personphysically aware so that an external obsever can conclude this person is aware.
Um, can we bring chi into this? I think it may hold some answer....
RuroumiKenshin
Apr18-03, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, actually you don't ever "experience unconsciousness". If you experience something, you do so consciously.
Very nicely put, Mentat!
BUT, you can remember how you were unconscious. To make it easier for me to say, I should like to point out that I was once unconscious. I remember it, just as I was regaining consciousness. I also remember that I did not have any conscious feelings at all. I agree with you, in what you said, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that you know you were unconscious because you remember, to put it lightly, blacking out.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr18-03, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by nevagil
Consciousness= awareness
When we sleep we ain't consciousness. That can be argued with word games but unless there is more to it than word games, why argue it?
IOW ? I new here, whats IOW?
Uhh...what about word games? I am very confused; what is your point?
Why argue something complicated such as consciousness? (is that what you're rhetorically asking?) Because if one has a thirst for understnding, then one must persue it without being detered by mere complexity, which in the end is relatively simple (onece you've solved it!).
The question is, basically, how do you know someone is aware? i.e., conscious.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
That definition seems to be one that is prejudicial to other animals. Animals, many of which do not act like most humans are obviously conscious of their surroundings (esp. prairie dogs). My definition of consciousness is "Awareness". Now, we need to contemplate what makes a person aware, that is to say, what makes a personphysically aware so that an external obsever can conclude this person is aware.
Um, can we bring chi into this? I think it may hold some answer....
Precisely. This definition is prejudicial to other animals. Most people are when deciding intelligence. In nature shows, we recurrently compare animals on the basis of human like behaviour. In films, we see such mimicry. Sharks and more different creatures are compared to "killing machines". Would you consider a computer aware, thanks to the existence of the keyboard? There were many philosophies in the middle ages who thought of animals as machines.... Only modern biology, asserting animals' relationship to man, have really ended this trend.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Very nicely put, Mentat!
Thank you.
BUT, you can remember how you were unconscious. To make it easier for me to say, I should like to point out that I was once unconscious. I remember it, just as I was regaining consciousness. I also remember that I did not have any conscious feelings at all. I agree with you, in what you said, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that you know you were unconscious because you remember, to put it lightly, blacking out.
I agree. You just can't remember actually being unconscious. You can remember the times right before, and right after, it - but you can never "experience" unconsciousness, and thus have nothing (E.i.N.S. --> ... and thus don't have anything) to remember.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr19-03, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely. This definition is prejudicial to other animals. Most people are when deciding intelligence. In nature shows, we recurrently compare animals on the basis of human like behaviour. In films, we see such mimicry. Sharks and more different creatures are compared to "killing machines". Would you consider a computer aware, thanks to the existence of the keyboard? There were many philosophies in the middle ages who thought of animals as machines.... Only modern biology, asserting animals' relationship to man, have really ended this trend.
Okay, I've been so stupid! I just said the "answer" to your question, and didn't consider it at all. Then it just hit me!
Okay, you can observe (that is the key word) an animal and see them act consciously. But then, take viruses or germs for example. Are they conscious? Does just acting conscious mean that something is conscious? How about the meaning of consciousness, aside from the definition?
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Okay, I've been so stupid! I just said the "answer" to your question, and didn't consider it at all. Then it just hit me!
Okay, you can observe (that is the key word) an animal and see them act consciously. But then, take viruses or germs for example. Are they conscious? Does just acting conscious mean that something is conscious? How about the meaning of consciousness, aside from the definition?
1. No. Much of science regards them as barely alive. Perhaps justifiably?
2. Well... In reality yes. Philosophically speaking, there is the possibility of simulations/illusions of consciousness. But if we allow for that realistically, then we get the rather nonsensical notion that no-one is conscious save oneself.
3. I guess you can call my first definition the "meaning", and the second the physical "definition".
M. Gaspar
Apr19-03, 09:17 AM
If everything - EVERYTHING - has a "seed" of consciousness "in" it (as many, including myself, believe they might), then everything -- muons, mesons, quarks, atoms, rocks, fish, frogs, dogs, stars, quasars -- EVERYTHING has at the very least a sort of "self-awareness". THe more complex the coherent system of "matter" with its attendant consciousness "in" it, the more complex the CONSCIOUSNESS.
Perhaps, consciousness - like "matter" -- accretes via natural forces in the Universe.
heusdens
Apr19-03, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If everything - EVERYTHING - has a "seed" of consciousness "in" it (as many, including myself, believe they might), then everything -- muons, mesons, quarks, atoms, rocks, fish, frogs, dogs, stars, quasars -- EVERYTHING has at the very least a sort of "self-awareness". THe more complex the coherent system of "matter" with its attendant consciousness "in" it, the more complex the CONSCIOUSNESS.
Perhaps, consciousness - like "matter" -- accretes via natural forces in the Universe.
As in the example of a molecule of air, which can not give us any evidence of why a property of a hurricane exists, the same holds true for matter. Matter obviously contains within itself the possibility to form structures able of consciousness, but this is not a valid argument for asserting that that property resides in ordinary matter already.
But this of course is dependend on how broad or limited one defines "consciousness". If it is to mean that anything that interact with things outside it, then of course matter is "consciouss", since all known matter is subject to physical forces.
In fact, that is the only wary why we can observe and explore matter in the first place.
Suppose we define on pure theoretical basis a P particle, but define it in such a way that it does not interact with known matter. The "existence" of such P particles is then a purely theoretical things, cause there would not be even in theory a way to observe, detect or explore it.
This is a problem for string cosmology too, by the way. Although this is not because of the theoretical impossibility, but of the practical impossibility to detect seperate strings, or small structures of strings.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr20-03, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If everything - EVERYTHING - has a "seed" of consciousness "in" it (as many, including myself, believe they might), then everything -- muons, mesons, quarks, atoms, rocks, fish, frogs, dogs, stars, quasars -- EVERYTHING has at the very least a sort of "self-awareness". THe more complex the coherent system of "matter" with its attendant consciousness "in" it, the more complex the CONSCIOUSNESS.
Perhaps, consciousness - like "matter" -- accretes via natural forces in the Universe.
How is it that innimate objects have "self-awareness"?(rhetorical) Consciousness[awareness] is observable, whereas inanimate objects don't have awareness. What you're saying implies Shintoism, or....I believe it was called "Darianism" or something of the sort(maybe Wuliheron could help me out here). These beliefs say that everything (including inanimate objects) has a spirit. Is this what you are trying to get at?
pelastration
Apr20-03, 04:46 PM
Possible entries to go deeper on consciousness/awareness:
1.There is individual and there is collective Consciousness (CG Jung).
2. What is the possible energetic process?
Think how the first cells started. = joined actions of nucleic acids -> specialization of separte parts caused by extreme surrounding situations braught larger unity.
Condition: inter-communication between the parts, flux of energy (includes information), internal circulation.
3. Consciousness of unity is only possible if there is an alter-ego ( a mirroring system that reflects and confirms a difference).
This is one of the points of Kabbal. Kether (the One) needs the Two (being an emanation of One) as reflexion. The path between these is called the Fool (representing uncontroled energy)
RuroumiKenshin
Apr20-03, 08:15 PM
Interesting.
What are the characteristics of self-awareness? Note that self awareness could be knowing what you're doing and where you are, why and the sort. But, what one should consider what can posess these characteristics. First one should define "alive" from a general persepective, since the definition of "alive" is highly contrevetial, then define what could posess self-awareness.
One important point that could draw the line from natural awareness and artificial awareness is how something comes to the conclusion of its whereabouts. Do you agree?
Here's a question for those of you who think that the universe is conscious: Why would so much matter and energy come together (in the brain), to produce human consciousness, when the scattered chaos of the universal debris can have it's own consciousness, in spite of lack of complexity?
RuroumiKenshin
Apr20-03, 08:53 PM
Very good question Mentat. I think that a conscious universe is rather untenable. I believe you may agree?
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Very good question Mentat. I think that a conscious universe is rather untenable. I believe you may agree?
Yes I do agree. I think that parts of the universe have consciousness (the living parts), but not all parts, and definitely not it as a whole.
pelastration
Apr20-03, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
What are the characteristics of self-awareness? Note that self awareness could be knowing what you're doing and where you are, why and the sort.
Probably the basic condition is a layering system (several tissu's type) related to the available observation system(s). The different parameters will need to work in synergy (thus interconnected) and able to store (fix) several values in a QM-type of context. So evaluation is essential (what is my priority now ... shall I open the box and see if the cat became Mickey Mouse). So store superpositions (possibility to forget = protect the system against overflow ... make it wave) and ability to remember (open directory ... load ... back a particle that activates an intermediar -> since knowledge is transferable without losing the information). This system (probably forgot some layers) gives the observer the system to evaluate his surrounding and thus awareness of his position in the surrounding. The observations system maybe non-intellectual (parasympathetic nerve system or vegetative ns) such as: I NEED FOOD!!! This can be the type of awareness animals have (if we think they have no self-awareness). Self-awareness (Consciousness) is - I think - related to the possibility to make choices and evaluations which go above the instincts (= evolutionary programmed awareness), and the freedom to say 'NO'. It has to do with the possibility to predict /preview/ calculate steps in the time frame which is not related to the immediate 'Now-Situation'. It also has to do with the ability the connect non-physical values to physical events (Art : a painting of Chagall, letters to poems, music ) and auto-created reality (humor, , absurdity, ... and a transcendental reality). ... that's enough for now ... I can go for hours and hours like this ..;-)
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
First one should define "alive" from a general persepective, since the definition of "alive" is highly contrevetial, then define what could posess self-awareness.
Life will be a similar tissu-type of intertwined layers. But here there will be probably more structurally more layers. But I think that there be less quantum leaps. The struggle from life has eliminated the entities which couldn't decide at the essential moments. Fractal geometry maybe here interesting to examine the DNA level.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I
One important point that could draw the line from natural awareness and artificial awareness is how something comes to the conclusion of its whereabouts. Do you agree?
Yes. Artificial awareness can probably be reached by creating Quantum numbers, symbols and alphabet which make it possible to add quality to the measure systems. For example that way numbers can have colors representing choices. That way you can counts apples, eggs and oranges and still locate them after all type of calculations. Such approach makes it possible to build real quantum computers. The nice thing is that where in nature we try to find out how QM work from the downside up, in such approach we acts as Gods ourselves and can make the rules from the top.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr20-03, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes I do agree. I think that parts of the universe have consciousness (the living parts), but not all parts, and definitely not it as a whole.
Ah, so in conclusion, the universe itself is not conscious, but some inhabitants are conscious.
Is it more correct(is that grammatically correct? please answer this question... ) to say that the inhabitants of the universe are alive and conscious, taking into consideration artificial intelligence?
M. Gaspar
Apr20-03, 11:40 PM
Consciousness may be on a continuum.
A totally chaotic Universe --without any coherent CHUNKS of consciousness as we (and other species, terrestrial or not) "possess" -- would have nothing but "scattered throughts" as opposed to FOCUSED ones.
I speculate that consciousness accretes light "matter" via corresponding forces.
The consciousness of the Universe might be directly proportional to the quantity (and quality?) of the complex and dynamic coherent systems (like atoms, humans, galaxies) operating "within" It.
That's why It might "bother" to create human consciousness.
Howevever, I don't see this (our evolution out of the mud) as "decision" made by the Universe, but rather a NATURAL PRODUCT of the NATURAL FUNCTIONS of Its NATURAL SYSTEMS.
I know we're having this conversation elsewhere (and not getting very far with it), but I'll say it again: the Universe TENDS TOWARD COHERENCY. Thus, elementary particles -- as soon as they could -- formed ATOMS...dynamic coherent systems that, in turn, came together to form elements, and, well, you know the rest.
Here's a quote I read today by Rupert Sheldrake, a crackpot by your standards, but OK by me:
[I]"The big bang theory describes the origin of the universe as a small, undifferentiated, primal unity. The universe then expands and grows, and new forms and structures appear within it. This is more like a developing organism than like a machine...the whole cosmos is in creative evolution. So, if the whole universe is alive, if the universe is like a great organism, then everything within it is best understood as organisms rather than machines."
It is probably impossible to imagine -- let alone detect, measure or prove -- the consciousness of an atom, a star or a galaxy -- but I think the subject is worth CONSIDERING.
Since consciousness does SEEM to "exist" "within" the Universe (as with yours and mine), then I think any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an incomplete theory.
But here's my current inquiry: Does anyone EVER "reverse polarity" on their paradigms (i.e., change their minds on their positions) or are we each, somehow, predisposed to think mechanistically vs. "organically" from birth...or do our ideas "set up" like concrete somewhere along the way?
Are we the ying/yang of philosophy that must BOTH exists to get to the "ultimate truth"?
M. Gaspar
Apr21-03, 12:04 AM
"Matter" -- and I usually put the word in quotes to keep forefront the awareness that "matter" is "bound-up ENERGY" -- is made possible by the NATURAL FUNCTION of the Universe to COMBINE It's NATURAL INGREDIENTS (elementary particles) in a variety of ways. Without the "ingredient" of elementary particles (which were, no doubt (ha ha) "contained" in some form -- ENERGY -- in the primal singularity), matter as we know it would not exist. That's why we call them the "building blocks" of matter.
Does this mean that we (or anyone, including the Universe) would "know" specifically what this stuff was going to form?! No.
A molecule of air does not predict a huricane. So what. My point is that the huricane is COMPRISED OF THE MOLECULE OF AIR.
"Nothing comes from nothing" is my contention (and I'm sure we can kick that around, too). Still, based on this contention -- which, by the way, is as "provable" as "Everything comes from Nothing", hence, just as VALID! -- I maintain that consciousness existed in a compressed state, like everything else, in the Primal Singularity.
And, when the Primal Singularity BLEW...consciousness, like Everything Else, fragmented out...then proceded to ACCRETE, like "matter", into dynamic and coherent chunks of consciousness.
Prove it didn't. [s(]
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Ah, so in conclusion, the universe itself is not conscious, but some inhabitants are conscious.
Is it more correct(is that grammatically correct? please answer this question... ) to say that the inhabitants of the universe are alive and conscious, taking into consideration artificial intelligence?
I don't understand the question (though it is grammatically correct). Yes, some inhabitants (note: not "all inhabitants") of the universe are conscious.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
[B]Consciousness may be on a continuum.
A totally chaotic Universe --without any coherent CHUNKS of consciousness as we (and other species, terrestrial or not) "possess" -- would have nothing but "scattered throughts" as opposed to FOCUSED ones.
I speculate that consciousness accretes light "matter" via corresponding forces.
I don't understand the last (quoted) sentence. However, as far as the idea of having "scattered thoughts", because of the matters' being scattered, I disagree. Unless all pieces of matter are thoughts (in which case my brain should get significantly bigger, every time I think), thoughts cannot be scattered throughout the universe, as you imply.
M. Gaspar
Apr21-03, 09:07 PM
What I'm saying is that consciousness -- like "matter" -- in order to function as something "useful", needs to "come together" into dynamic, coherent systems (like atoms, which clump together into even more complex dynamic, coherent systems, which, again, do the same).
If the Universe did not have this propensity (natural forces and ingredients) to bring its diffuse substances together, the Universe would be a pointless, structureless soup.
Likewise with consciousness: If my speculation is correct and there are quanta of consciousness which were diffused at the moment after the Big Bang, then it would be through natural FORCES THAT IMPACT CONSCIOUSNESS (corresponding to gravity) that these quanta would come together to form coherent systems of thought.
Another important point is this: that consciousness -- yours and mine -- are NOT confined to our brains, but, in fact, are part of a larger dynamic, coherent system that includes, well, probably EVERYTHING ELSE!
By the way, I'm not satisfied with the word "useful" above...but I can't seem to come up with right word now. Maybe YOU can suggest another.
Meanwhile, Mentat, why would you say so DEFINITIVELY to MajinVegeta that not all inhabitants of the Universe are conscious? You don't know that any more than I know that they are.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr22-03, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Consciousness may be on a continuum.
A totally chaotic Universe --without any coherent CHUNKS of consciousness as we (and other species, terrestrial or not) "possess" -- would have nothing but "scattered throughts" as opposed to FOCUSED ones.
When you say "scattered thoughts", do you mean subconscious thoughts? does "focused" refer to conscious thoughts?
I speculate that consciousness accretes light "matter" via corresponding forces.
Well, they are related (in the sense that there are hypothetical(?) particles called biophotons that are emitted....)
The consciousness of the Universe might be directly proportional to the quantity (and quality?) of the complex and dynamic coherent systems (like atoms, humans, galaxies) operating "within" It.
The universe is not conscious. Some inhabitants are. The universe is probably inanimate. What makes it seem like an organism? I believe this calls for an analysis of the definition of life itself. Even if we reach a conclusion, the conclusion may only be the criteria used to identify earthly life.
That's why It might "bother" to create human consciousness.
To create human consciousness in an android?
Howevever, I don't see this (our evolution out of the mud) as "decision" made by the Universe, but rather a NATURAL PRODUCT of the NATURAL FUNCTIONS of Its NATURAL SYSTEMS.
what do you mean? The universe is conscious because of its inhabitant
particles and stuff?
I know we're having this conversation elsewhere (and not getting very far with it), but I'll say it again: the Universe TENDS TOWARD COHERENCY. Thus, elementary particles -- as soon as they could -- formed ATOMS...dynamic coherent systems that, in turn, came together to form elements, and, well, you know the rest.
Oh, I see what you're saying! (an ingenious postulate!) That's an excellent idea! Maybe the universe could be an early organism, in yet another universe!! cool! but its really out there....
Here's a quote I read today by Rupert Sheldrake, a crackpot by your standards, but OK by me:
[I]"The big bang theory describes the origin of the universe as a small, undifferentiated, primal unity. The universe then expands and grows, and new forms and structures appear within it. This is more like a developing organism than like a machine...the whole cosmos is in creative evolution. So, if the whole universe is alive, if the universe is like a great organism, then everything within it is best understood as organisms rather than machines."
Although I applaud the whole idea, it is utterly unsubstantiated. As I said before, defining life universally (i.e., an absolute definition of life) calls for all the possible ways life can exist. One definition of life that applies to every single living thing is hereditary material. If something has hereditary material, it could very well be alive. How do you define life?
Are we the ying/yang of philosophy that must BOTH exists to get to the "ultimate truth"?
That implies we are the only living things in the universe. Although there is no evidence of extraterrestrials, the universe is enormous. The universe is to us, as the atom is to a quark. There could be aliens out there, somewhere (for all we know, they could exist in one of the many infinite parallel universes, where genetic mutations caused the humans to turn into aliens!! [g)] ).
RuroumiKenshin
Apr22-03, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Meanwhile, Mentat, why would you say so DEFINITIVELY to MajinVegeta that not all inhabitants of the Universe are conscious? You don't know that any more than I know that they are. [/B]
I believe its because its true. On Earth (which is in the universe), there are subconscious beings. He can be sure of that since its already proven, and this could mean that there are subconscious beings out there too. Can something unconscious, unsubconscious be considered alive?
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What I'm saying is that consciousness -- like "matter" -- in order to function as something "useful", needs to "come together" into dynamic, coherent systems (like atoms, which clump together into even more complex dynamic, coherent systems, which, again, do the same).
If the Universe did not have this propensity (natural forces and ingredients) to bring its diffuse substances together, the Universe would be a pointless, structureless soup.
Likewise with consciousness: If my speculation is correct and there are quanta of consciousness which were diffused at the moment after the Big Bang, then it would be through natural FORCES THAT IMPACT CONSCIOUSNESS (corresponding to gravity) that these quanta would come together to form coherent systems of thought.
Another important point is this: that consciousness -- yours and mine -- are NOT confined to our brains, but, in fact, are part of a larger dynamic, coherent system that includes, well, probably EVERYTHING ELSE!
By the way, I'm not satisfied with the word "useful" above...but I can't seem to come up with right word now. Maybe YOU can suggest another.
Meanwhile, Mentat, why would you say so DEFINITIVELY to MajinVegeta that not all inhabitants of the Universe are conscious? You don't know that any more than I know that they are.
If consciousness clumps together, as you imply. Then why are grizzly bears and blue whales less conscious/intelligent than I am?
Actually, I do know that. I have presented my reasoning.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I believe its because its true. On Earth (which is in the universe), there are subconscious beings. He can be sure of that since its already proven, and this could mean that there are subconscious beings out there too. Can something unconscious, unsubconscious be considered alive?
It can be considered alive (just take a rock for example), but obviously not conscious. And the thread is about a "conscious universe".
M. Gaspar
Apr23-03, 12:21 AM
Mentat...re last post to MajinVegeta: that rocks may have "rock consciousness" is part and parcel of the discussion of whether the Universe Itself is conscious.
Mentat..(God: I wish I could lift quotes like the rest of you. Can't find how on faq.)...anyhoo...in your "grizzly bear" response to me:
Let's say that an evolving system of "accreting quanta of consciousness" "found a home" a long time ago in an evolving system of matter, like, say, and early fish.
First, I need you to envision this "evolving system of accreting quanta of consciousness" as "looking like" a diagram of the orbit of an electron. This means, a circle with a glob on one place on it. The glob is the consciousness of the fish. The rest of the circle is the EXTENDED consciousness of the fish.
Within the fish brain, there is only so much capacity to process stimuli, remember, learn, etc...thereby a fish is only able to contribute to a limited degree to the evolution of its own consciousness. Nonetheless, it probably learns and remembers a few things and, in doing so, its consciousness evolves by that much.
Thus, the glob AND the circle it is on (remember the DIAGRAM...not a real object) -- or, in other words, the fish consciousness and its extended consciousness -- evolves a bit by the time its "host" dies.
Bear with me, Mentat...it gets grizzly...
Now, this dynamic, coherent system (the glob and its circle) has accreted more quanta of consciousness and now "goes shopping" for another host. (Actually, I speculate that natural forces of affinity attract a system of consciousness into its next host..for the function of, hopefully, accreting more consciousness...i.e., evolving.)
Be that as it may (or may not): eons pass. the glob has long since graduated from fishdom, progressing upward through the "consciousness food chain" to the grizzly bear! It's still a glob, only more complex, processing info in a bear-like fashion, and proceeding to evolve.
However, the physical system of the bear brain does not allow for the complexity of thought that say, you or I, may enjoy and employ. When the bear dies, its consciousness (glob and circle) will seek another "fit".
Our consciousness has evolved from monkey consciousness. Size per se is not a factor. Processing capacity is. Now, I have no idea what the consciousness of a whale is like (they may be processing/accreting a lot more than we think) but if indeed they are "less conscious than we are" its because of the complexity thing.
I am happy to have found this Forum because, apparently, I am COMPLETELY UNABLE to COMMUNICATE my own SPECULATIONS!
Thus, I welcome minds like yours and Heusdens that call me to task.
Please do so again at your earliest convenience.
M. Gaspar
Apr23-03, 12:45 AM
No, I do not mean that "scattered thoughts" are unconscious thoughts and "focused thoughts" are conscious thoughts.
Actually, I was being FIGURATIVE! So let me explain it this way...
Let's say that, in the "material world", the Universe "wants" to make water. For this to happen, It needs to combine -- through Its NATURAL FORCES -- one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. When it does so, the dynamic, coherent system of CO2 could be said to be "focused" on performing the function of water.
If the carbon atom and two oxygen atoms did NOT come together, they would be "scattered".
This may be said to be a metaphor for what might be going on in the "realm" of consciousness. If "particles of consciousness" never came together through natural accretive forces, then consciousness (thought) would remain "scattered", performing no particular function.
Only when they accrete, say, into the consciousness of a fish, or a bear, or a star, do they perform a function and are "focused" on performing that function.
I have to admit that I am finding it very difficult to translate my speculations into models for the sake of discussion.
Nonetheless, I will persist.
For instance, I made a typo in the posting you referenced. I did NOT mean to say "light matter"; I mean to say " LIKE matter" with regard to the accretion process. Thus, your response is not on point to what I was TRYING to say.
The Universe is INANIMATE??????? Or, an EARLY ORGANISM?
I say it is VERY ANIMATE and an ORGANISM of the GREATEST COMPLEXITY!
As I have maintained before: The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.
If that ain't livin', I don't know what is! And neither do you. [;)]
RuroumiKenshin
Apr23-03, 12:54 AM
Mentat..(God: I wish I could lift quotes like the rest of you. Can't find how on faq.)
Oh, just use "[quote]" at the beginning of the part you want to quote then "/quote"(i removed the brakets because I quoted myself, but when you're quoting, use brackets) after the last part you want to quote. Or, you could just press the "quote" button on the post you want to quote. see! nothing to it!
side note: if you want something bold, for example, just write [b(don't want to bold anything here, so I had only one braket)
before the word(s) and [/b] at the end of what you're "bolding" [;)] [:D]
RuroumiKenshin
Apr23-03, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
No, I do not mean that "scattered thoughts" are unconscious thoughts and "focused thoughts" are conscious thoughts.
Actually, I was being FIGURATIVE! So let me explain it this way...
Let's say that, in the "material world", the Universe "wants" to make water. For this to happen, It needs to combine -- through Its NATURAL FORCES -- one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. When it does so, the dynamic, coherent system of CO2 could be said to be "focused" on performing the function of water.
If the carbon atom and two oxygen atoms did NOT come together, they would be "scattered".
This may be said to be a metaphor for what might be going on in the "realm" of consciousness. If "particles of consciousness" never came together through natural accretive forces, then consciousness (thought) would remain "scattered", performing no particular function.
Only when they accrete, say, into the consciousness of a fish, or a bear, or a star, do they perform a function and are "focused" on performing that function.
I have to admit that I am finding it very difficult to translate my speculations into models for the sake of discussion.
Nonetheless, I will persist.
For instance, I made a typo in the posting you referenced. I did NOT mean to say "light matter"; I mean to say " LIKE matter" with regard to the accretion process. Thus, your response is not on point to what I was TRYING to say.
The Universe is INANIMATE??????? Or, an EARLY ORGANISM?
I say it is VERY ANIMATE and an ORGANISM of the GREATEST COMPLEXITY!
As I have maintained before: The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.
If that ain't livin', I don't know what is! And neither do you. [;)]
heh, when you put it that way, you do have a point. How do you apply theoretical physics to this?
Mentat said that the rocks could be considered alive. The universe isn't conscious, I don't believe, but it is alive. I rest my case for the time being, unitl some good argument pops up.
M. Gaspar
Apr23-03, 10:50 AM
We don't have to go to "theoretical physics" we can stick with Newtonian as a PARALLEL to what MIGHT be going on in the "realm" of consciousness.
I speculate that there is a force in the "realm" of consciousness that CORRESPONDS to gravity...and that consciousness ACCRETES.
As to whether or not the Universe is conscious, I find it amusing that you can concede that it is "alive" but can't go so far as to think that It is "conscious".
I need time to regroup. However, trust me, another "good arguement" will "pop up".
Meanwhile, thanks for the technical info. Will try it when I'm feeling COURAGEOUS. [g)]
M. Gaspar
Apr23-03, 10:56 AM
You have no idea how much I HATE the "electron on circle" model I have posited above.
Still, at this moment, I cannot think of anything more illustrative of how consciousness may "inhabit" an entity...while a portion of it "reaches out" BEYOND the Entity...still dependent on the Entity to accrete more consciousness (EVOLVE).
Please "see" the "circle" as a "dynamic electric charge" or something. Honestly, I'm at a loss...but don't write me off just yet.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Mentat...re last post to MajinVegeta: that rocks may have "rock consciousness" is part and parcel of the discussion of whether the Universe Itself is conscious.
I didn't say that rocks had any kind of conciousness. I was, in fact, saying quite the opposite.
Let's say that an evolving system of "accreting quanta of consciousness" "found a home" a long time ago in an evolving system of matter, like, say, and early fish.
First, I need you to envision this "evolving system of accreting quanta of consciousness" as "looking like" a diagram of the orbit of an electron. This means, a circle with a glob on one place on it. The glob is the consciousness of the fish. The rest of the circle is the EXTENDED consciousness of the fish.
Within the fish brain, there is only so much capacity to process stimuli, remember, learn, etc...thereby a fish is only able to contribute to a limited degree to the evolution of its own consciousness. Nonetheless, it probably learns and remembers a few things and, in doing so, its consciousness evolves by that much.
Thus, the glob AND the circle it is on (remember the DIAGRAM...not a real object) -- or, in other words, the fish consciousness and its extended consciousness -- evolves a bit by the time its "host" dies.
Bear with me, Mentat...it gets grizzly...
Now, this dynamic, coherent system (the glob and its circle) has accreted more quanta of consciousness and now "goes shopping" for another host. (Actually, I speculate that natural forces of affinity attract a system of consciousness into its next host..for the function of, hopefully, accreting more consciousness...i.e., evolving.)
Be that as it may (or may not): eons pass. the glob has long since graduated from fishdom, progressing upward through the "consciousness food chain" to the grizzly bear! It's still a glob, only more complex, processing info in a bear-like fashion, and proceeding to evolve.
However, the physical system of the bear brain does not allow for the complexity of thought that say, you or I, may enjoy and employ. When the bear dies, its consciousness (glob and circle) will seek another "fit".
Our consciousness has evolved from monkey consciousness. Size per se is not a factor. Processing capacity is. Now, I have no idea what the consciousness of a whale is like (they may be processing/accreting a lot more than we think) but if indeed they are "less conscious than we are" its because of the complexity thing.
All of this is based on the idea that there is a quantum of consciousness. I really doubt this. Also, if there was one, then why can't we detect it within our brains, as it must be pretty advanced by now?
I am happy to have found this Forum because, apparently, I am COMPLETELY UNABLE to COMMUNICATE my own SPECULATIONS!
Thus, I welcome minds like yours and Heusdens that call me to task.
Please do so again at your earliest convenience.
This is an admirable quality, that you appreciate my counter-arguments, and use them to refine the way that you describe things. If only others could show such humility.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
No, I do not mean that "scattered thoughts" are unconscious thoughts and "focused thoughts" are conscious thoughts.
Actually, I was being FIGURATIVE! So let me explain it this way...
Let's say that, in the "material world", the Universe "wants" to make water. For this to happen, It needs to combine -- through Its NATURAL FORCES -- one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. When it does so, the dynamic, coherent system of CO2 could be said to be "focused" on performing the function of water.
If the carbon atom and two oxygen atoms did NOT come together, they would be "scattered".
This may be said to be a metaphor for what might be going on in the "realm" of consciousness. If "particles of consciousness" never came together through natural accretive forces, then consciousness (thought) would remain "scattered", performing no particular function.
Only when they accrete, say, into the consciousness of a fish, or a bear, or a star, do they perform a function and are "focused" on performing that function.
I have to admit that I am finding it very difficult to translate my speculations into models for the sake of discussion.
Nonetheless, I will persist.
For instance, I made a typo in the posting you referenced. I did NOT mean to say "light matter"; I mean to say " LIKE matter" with regard to the accretion process. Thus, your response is not on point to what I was TRYING to say.
The Universe is INANIMATE??????? Or, an EARLY ORGANISM?
I say it is VERY ANIMATE and an ORGANISM of the GREATEST COMPLEXITY!
As I have maintained before: The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.
If that ain't livin', I don't know what is! And neither do you. [;)]
The universe is not responsive to it's parts! It's parts are responsive to each other - and in a highly chaotic manner, mind you.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You have no idea how much I HATE the "electron on circle" model I have posited above.
Still, at this moment, I cannot think of anything more illustrative of how consciousness may "inhabit" an entity...while a portion of it "reaches out" BEYOND the Entity...still dependent on the Entity to accrete more consciousness (EVOLVE).
Please "see" the "circle" as a "dynamic electric charge" or something. Honestly, I'm at a loss...but don't write me off just yet.
OK. And yet, I don't see how you can think that the quantum of consciousness can only be passed on when an organism dies.
M. Gaspar
Apr23-03, 10:32 PM
I CANNOT AS YET CAPTURE QUOTES!!!
I did what MajinVegeta said THREE DIFFERENT WAYS.
First, I hit the "quote" button above
and a window opens up on the upper lefthand corner that allows me to type in words...but THAT can't be it. I can't believe everyone RETYPES those extended quotes.
So then I just typed [quote] and then tried to highlight something below and then do the /quote at the end of it (per MV) but that didn't work either.
Then I tried to type [quote] in front of the paragraph in the actual post. Nothing.
Please, someone, be very specific in the steps I need to take to capture quotes.
Meanwhile, I know how to work with the fonts but I don't have a clue what the boxes under those buttons do.
Was I supposed to have been BORN with this knowledge?
Meanwhile, Mentat... what do YOU mean when YOU say "quantum of consciousness"???
RuroumiKenshin
Apr24-03, 01:14 AM
Okay, detailed steps:
If you wish to seperately quote portions of a quote, press the "quote" button on each corner of the post. Then,
Put "" right before what you want to quote. then, put /quote (with brackets before and after /quote) at the very end of what you wish to quote.
example:
yadda yadda bla bla [/quote
note: in this example, I have (as I repeatedly pointed out, and want to make very clear) left out one braket, other wise you won't be able to see the html.
Anyhow, the case (i.e., capital, lower case) is irrelavent. Remember, if everyone else can do it, so can you!
[quote]
Then I tried to type "quote" in front of the paragraph in the actual post. Nothing.
At the end of the part you want to quote, type "". Remember that it always has to have brackets. the "/" indicates something like "until here" in html.
Meanwhile, I know how to work with the fonts but I don't have a clue what the boxes under those buttons do
What buttons are you refering to ?
M. Gaspar
Apr24-03, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Okay, detailed steps:
If you wish to seperately quote portions of a quote, press the "quote" button on each corner of the post. Then,
Put "
I see, and now I insert MY response via the "Edit" button. Let's see if this works.
At the end of the part you want to quote, type "". Remember that it always has to have brackets. the "/" indicates something like "until here" in html.
What buttons are you refering to ? [/QUOTE]
M. Gaspar
Apr24-03, 07:20 AM
I could only capture your entire posting PLUS I could not respond "outside of" your quote...but "inside", as you see.
Next, I tried to isolate one portion of your posting by putting a " where I wanted to start both BEFORE and AFTER hitting quote button. Doing it BEFORE yeilded nothing. There was no AFTER because it immediately captured your entire quote.
Wasting postings on this thread -- and boring others emmensely -- is probably not what I should be doing. Shall we waste two more on this, or not?
M. Gaspar
Apr24-03, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
The universe is not responsive to it's parts! It's parts are responsive to each other - and in a highly chaotic manner, mind you.
Mentat: I am sure that if one were able to observe the electrical impulses of your brain, say, when you were posting your last response to me above, you would say that it looked "highly chaotic".
However, if one looks at the RESULTS one sees that there must have been SOME order to it, in that you were able (1) read my posting, (2) process its contents, (3) formulate a response and (4) post it.
So, my first point is that something may APPEAR chaotic to our eyes even though something very COHERENT is going on.
But even if I conceded (which I do not) that the Universe is 99% DISORDER, let's take a look at the human body. We have within each of us a chemical and electrical communications systems. Our parts are talking to each other all the time. When we get depressed, our brains COMMUNICATE this to all of our parts. When a part gets hurt, it COMMUNICATES this to our brain.
I am a living, conscious entity that's responsive to all of my parts...maybe not consciously -- which, for me, is an alternate use of the word conscious meaning MINDFUL...if you can get the distinction. (We could say more about UNsconcious consciousness if we must.)
Meanwhile, look at the coherent complexity of the dynamic system that is the human body...or that of a galaxy...or that of the Universe as a whole. Of course, that's what we're TRYING to do -- wrap our minds around the Universe, so to speak -- with varying degrees of success.
Meanwhile, please respond to my question: what do YOU mean when you use the term "quantum of consciousness"?
Forgive my not having been able to answer before. I only get on-line for one hour per day, so I probably got off-line before you (M. Gaspar) ever posted those last couple of posts.
Anyway, M. Gaspar, look at the bottom-right part of this post. Look for the icon that says "quote". If you click on that, you will have captured everything that I say in this post, within a "quote box". Also, if you type the following: quote (withing brackets) and /quote (also within brackets), then whatever you type in between them will appear in a quote box.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Mentat: I am sure that if one were able to observe the electrical impulses of your brain, say, when you were posting your last response to me above, you would say that it looked "highly chaotic".
No, the firing of neurons is orderly, otherwise the thought would not be orderly. This is what distinguishes dreams from conscious thoughts, dreams are so "out there" because they are based on chaotic firings of neurons, and nearly random connections of syanpses.
So, my first point is that something may APPEAR chaotic to our eyes even though something very COHERENT is going on.
This may be so. And yet, the opposite is true, when it comes to the universe, which is a point that you didn't want to accept. The universe is trying to attain greater disorder, and the "COHERENT chunks" are just by-products, according to the second law of thermodynamics.
But even if I conceded (which I do not) that the Universe is 99% DISORDER, let's take a look at the human body. We have within each of us a chemical and electrical communications systems. Our parts are talking to each other all the time. When we get depressed, our brains COMMUNICATE this to all of our parts. When a part gets hurt, it COMMUNICATES this to our brain.
I am a living, conscious entity that's responsive to all of my parts...maybe not consciously -- which, for me, is an alternate use of the word conscious meaning MINDFUL...if you can get the distinction. (We could say more about UNsconcious consciousness if we must.)
And we must, because "mindful" and "conscious" are exactly synonymous.
Meanwhile, please respond to my question: what do YOU mean when you use the term "quantum of consciousness"?
I mean the hypothetical quantum that you have spoken of in your illustration. I don't believe that it exists, but I'm asking you questions about "it" to see if it's even a reasonable idea.
M. Gaspar
Apr25-03, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
No, the firing of neurons is orderly, otherwise the thought would not be orderly. This is what distinguishes dreams from conscious thoughts, dreams are so "out there" because they are based on chaotic firings of neurons, and nearly random connections of syanpses.
The firing of neurons may, indeed, be "orderly" in that they fire in specific sequences to retrieve a memory or advance a thought. However, for one "looking down" on the firings throughout the neuronal network, the firings would not SEEM "orderly" because we really wouldn't understand the "connections" being made.
This may be so. And yet, the opposite is true, when it comes to the universe, which is a point that you didn't want to accept. The universe is trying to attain greater disorder, and the "COHERENT chunks" are just by-products, according to the second law of thermodynamics.
It literally ASTOUNDS me that you (and I suppose most others???) believe this is true. Please point to something that is DISordered, so I can get my bearings within your point of view.
Meanwhile, the second law of thermodynamics suggests that the entropy of a closed system increases over time. In a closed syste, an increase in entropy is accompanied by a decrease in energy available. And there's the rub! There is NOT a loss of energy in the closed system that is the Universe because of a law I like a lot better...that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Thus, a part of the Universe may SEEM to be falling into disorder...say, like when a star goes supernova...but that's because we are "witnessing" -- or only THINKING ABOUT -- one small snapshot of a process that may be sending "star stuff" into the Universe that will eventually be used to make something else!
And we must, because "mindful" and "conscious" are exactly synonymous.
Not in my lexicon. Consciousness is on a continuum. The consciousness of a grain of sand will be different than that of a tree, which will be different than that of you and me. There are also LEVELS of consciousness: a person dreaming still has a form of consciousness. There is still consciousness in UNconsciousness. And the subconcious another level of consciousnees, too.
Also, dreams are NOT totally "random firings" because they are orderly enough to form IMAGES and TELL STORIES to ourselves.
I mean the hypothetical quantum that you have spoken of in your illustration. I don't believe that it exists, but I'm asking you questions about "it" to see if it's even a reasonable idea.
You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.
Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.
Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.
Better post this before I get disconnected AGAIN. [s(]
M. Gaspar
Apr25-03, 10:10 PM
I STILL do not know how to use the quote & reply feature properly. Please note, Mentat, that I responded to YOUR responses WITHIN your response.
Apparently, you're right: some systems ARE disorderly! [g)]
pelastration
Apr26-03, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I STILL do not know how to use the quote & reply feature properly. Please note, Mentat, that I responded to YOUR responses WITHIN your response.
Apparently, you're right: some systems ARE disorderly! [g)]
Gaspar just above the reply botton there is a "quote" button.
Just push on it ... a new frame opens containing the message of the other ... and start typing. ;-)
If you want to react on specific sentences just copy the whole message of the other, paste it into that frame and delete the sentence you don't need.
M. Gaspar
Apr26-03, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by pelastration
Gaspar just above the reply botton there is a "quote" button.
Just push on it ... a new frame opens containing the message of the other ... and start typing. ;-)
If you want to react on specific sentences just copy the whole message of the other, paste it into that frame and delete the sentence you don't need. ;-)
Now I will see if your quote looks different from my response.
M. Gaspar
Apr26-03, 08:34 AM
Why is my ;-) showing? Or was that a typo on YOUR part which I mistook for something I needed to do to get the quote serparate from the response?
I know I'm a crackpot...but a dunderhead, too???
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.
Not so much by accident, as by the fact that all things take the path of least resistance, which is why the universe is tending toward disorder (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what [B]I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.
Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.
However, if these little quanta of consciousness have any mass, then the more massive something is, the more aware it should be. However, this is not the case.
M. Gaspar
Apr26-03, 11:43 PM
I'm thinking that consciousness does NOT have "mass"...and the "accretion of consciousness" is not actually a "clustering together of a growing mass of consciousness particles"...but rather that, each "particle" of consciousness is more like an ADDED SITE to a complex NETWORK that EXTENDS BEYOND the being (or rock) it is "hooked up" to.
I need time to think about how to express this better...tho I'm tempted to try again right now:
Think about the brain. It imprints memories and information NOT in one specific place or another. No. Instead, it engages many of its neurons to imprint a memory, which, in turn, get "fired again" when one remembers the specific memory.
The more neurons, the better. And yet, an increase in what we we learn or remember or think does NOT increase the MASS of our brain. It's the PROCESS that's important...how the brain is set up to work.
heusdens
Apr27-03, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'm thinking that consciousness does NOT have "mass"...and the "accretion of consciousness" is not actually a "clustering together of a growing mass of consciousness particles"...but rather that, each "particle" of consciousness is more like an ADDED SITE to a complex NETWORK that EXTENDS BEYOND the being (or rock) it is "hooked up" to.
I need time to think about how to express this better...tho I'm tempted to try again right now:
Think about the brain. It imprints memories and information NOT in one specific place or another. No. Instead, it engages many of its neurons to imprint a memory, which, in turn, get "fired again" when one remembers the specific memory.
The more neurons, the better. And yet, an increase in what we we learn or remember or think does NOT increase the MASS of our brain. It's the PROCESS that's important...how the brain is set up to work.
Like I explained in the thread 'Everything came from nothing' we have to describe a high level property of matter and material forms, like consciousness on a specific level. We are aware we think with our brain, and our consciouss being is based on the material properties of our brain. Yet it is not much use to describe such high order phenomena as consciousness, in terms of the matter that forms the brain.
Large huuricanes also consists of moving air molecules. But the property of a hurricane can not be found just by stuyding the properties of individual air molecules. Without other knowledge, like that the flow of air is caused by differences of pressure in the atmosphere, and that these differences in air pressure are caused by heating and cooling of air, we would not be able to explain hurricanes.
heusdens
Apr27-03, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.
Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.
Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.
Better post this before I get disconnected AGAIN. [s(]
Our minds have formulated clear and distinct categories for phenomena. Like we know about life and about death, and that they are opposites. Using Aristotelian logic, something which is dead can not be life, and vice versa.
In reality though we don't see this clear distinction. It's lifeless matter that changes and become living matter in the course of time. Consciousness, as the highest order of order in material, costed more as 3 billion years to form. Now where did all of a sudden consciousness arise our of no-consciousness? This distinct line, seperating the two, in reality doesn't exist, what we see is continuous, and gradual steps, small changes, that contribute in the larger framework to large changes. We see quantity turn into quality.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
The more neurons, the better.
Then why is consciousness not restricted to only the things that actually have neurons?
And yet, an increase in what we we learn or remember or think does NOT increase the MASS of our brain.
I know this. This is why I asked about the Quanta of Consciousness, that you seemed to think were scattered but could "clump together".
It's the PROCESS that's important...how the brain is set up to work.
Exactly! That's why the universe can't be conscious; it has to be "set up to work" that way, and it's not.
M. Gaspar
Apr27-03, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly! That's why the universe can't be conscious; it has to be "set up to work" that way, and it's not. [/B]
Like you know.
I say the Universe IS set up that way!
Neurons of the brain might be a view in MICROCOSM of a MACRO-MECHANISM that allows the Universe to gather and process information.
M. Gaspar
Apr27-03, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by heusdens
Our minds have formulated clear and distinct categories for phenomena. Like we know about life and about death, and that they are opposites. Using Aristotelian logic, something which is dead can not be life, and vice versa.
In reality though we don't see this clear distinction. It's lifeless matter that changes and become living matter in the course of time. Consciousness, as the highest order of order in material, costed more as 3 billion years to form. Now where did all of a sudden consciousness arise our of no-consciousness? This distinct line, seperating the two, in reality doesn't exist, what we see is continuous, and gradual steps, small changes, that contribute in the larger framework to large changes. We see quantity turn into quality.
Actually, you just made my point: consciousness didn't SUDDENLY arise. It has always been part of the Universe. However, like matter -- baryonic matter -- it needed to EVOLVE.
I've decided to say more on the Everything from Nothing thread.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr27-03, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Like you know.
I say the Universe IS set up that way!
Neurons of the brain might be a view in MICROCOSM of a MACRO-MECHANISM that allows the Universe to gather and process information.
M. Gaspar, the questioning of the universes' conscousness cannot be answered. "Like you know" goes for all of us.
One fundamental characteristic of life is reproduction. The universe posseses this. take the first law of thermodynamics. The mass of the universe is constant, never changing.
Additionally, this criteria would exclude life forms created by design. Surely, if we had been created by an intelligent God, it would not follow that we were any less alive?
Following are some of the applications that authors draw from this definition:
Note that a single human being does not satisfy the above sufficient condition to be considered living, but it is made up of cells some of which do satisfy it. A male—female pair would collectively be a system capable of self-reproduction, and so this system would satisfy the sufficient condition. In any biosphere we can imagine, some systems contained therein would satisfy it . . .
A virus satisfies the above sufficient condition, and so we consider it a living organism . . .
Automobiles, for example, must be considered alive since they contain a great deal of information, and they can self-reproduce in the sense that there are human mechanics who can make a copy of the automobile. These mechanics are to automobiles what a living cell’s biochemical machinery is to a virus. The form of automobiles in the environment is preserved by natural selection: there is a fierce struggle for existence going on between various "races" of automobiles! In America, Japanese automobiles are competing with native American automobiles for scarce resources—money paid to the manufacturer—that will result in either more American or more Japanese automobiles being built!
At least the authors are applying their definition consistently. But in doing so, they have shown that it cannot handle the easy examples. For surely a single human being is an easy example of something that is alive, and an automobile is an easy example of something that is not alive. A virus, on the other hand, is a difficult example that is considered a living thing by some biologists but not by others; it is a borderline case at best.
To summarize, the Barrow/Tipler definition of life fails two of the criteria we proposed at the start: it doesn’t handle the easy cases, and it isn’t simple (they have to add special clauses to handle cases like mules and human reproduction).
I love this essay! here's the url for those who wish to read the essay: http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm#criteria
M. Gaspar
Apr27-03, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
M. Gaspar, the questioning of the universes' conscousness cannot be answered. "Like you know" goes for all of us.
One fundamental characteristic of life is reproduction. The universe posseses this. take the first law of thermodynamics. The mass of the universe is constant, never changing.
I love this essay! here's the url for those who wish to read the essay: http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm#criteria
I suppose, now and again, I make statements as if I "know"...but, actually, I'm fully aware that I'm only SPECULATING...so your point is well taken.
Still, when someone says definitively that the Universe is not "set up" to "think"...it begs the response "Like you know."
I suspect that our biological definition of life might not be as COMPREHENSIVE as some of us would like to believe.
For instance, if it is "true" that the Universe keeps "giving birth" to ITSELF...this would satisfy MY definition of "living".
That we cannot "know" for certain that the Universe is conscious (or not) does not mean we cannot "take the case" that It is and try to "make the case" that It is within this Forum.
Ideas evolve.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr27-03, 10:51 PM
I was telling my sister about this discussion, and she insisted there was no point in discussing something we couldn't give a definite answer to.
Anyway, how does the universe give birth to itself? Well, then again, I could see your point. Quantum fluctuations actually caused the universe as we know it to come into exitence. So, it sort of did, give birth to itself. But, as I stated before (in "Everything came from Nothing") that the universe seems to have no goal in its evolution.
On the other hand, neither do we. We live, and we die. The universe is born, then it collapses into a singularity(the Big Crunch) and dies. And it happens all over again; because black holes/singularities evaporate. so its like a cycle. Does it have a purpose?
heusdens
Apr27-03, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Anyway, how does the universe give birth to itself? Well, then again, I could see your point. Quantum fluctuations actually caused the universe as we know it to come into existence. So, it sort of did, give birth to itself.
This is stated in a weird way, which makes it quite incomprohensible, and the reasoning is wrong. There is no point in discussing the 'birth' of the universe, as there was no such 'birth'.
If you state that quantum fluctuations caused the birth of the universe, then in other words those quantum fluctuations happened outside time and space? This realy makes no sense.
Perhaps a good idea for a concept that uses quantum fluctuations and a scalar field to explain this, is in the theory of eternal inflation.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr27-03, 11:06 PM
Of course time had to exist in order for the BB to occur. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Space had to exist as well, for strings to exist.
what's the theory of eternal inflation?
heusdens
Apr27-03, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.
Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.
Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.
The reasoning is wrong here, in that you assume because of the material process going on in the universe, that amongst others has formed us out of lifeless matter, in the course of a very long material process, therefore the process (universe) needs to be called consciouss too. This conclusion has no basis in reality, but is nothing but a misconception, since the reasoning is wrong.
If a painting is beautifull, and was made out of materials as paint using a paint brush and handled by a painter, do we conclude then (on the basis that the painting is beautifull) that the painting process, the paint, paint brush or painter therefore must be beautifull too?
Iacchus32
Apr28-03, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.
I can now see that you've obtained your B.S. degree here and, that what you're preaching is the "medium phase" of acceptance between the material world and a spiritual world, and yet if you don't follow through with "its conclusion," all you're really doing is sitting on the fence.
In which case we can either have three "crackpot realities" or, one "consolidated reality."
Now why does this bring to mind the notion of the Holy Trinity? Where the one God is perceived as three, and the three Gods are perceived as one, when in fact it's really only "One God" to begin with. Whereas the idea of three Gods is perceived as insane, and the idea of One God reflects reality as a whole.
M. Gaspar
Apr28-03, 10:19 PM
Actually, if I didn't have to use the term "God" ever again, I would be quite content...because I see the common concept of "God" as an EXTRANEOUS IDEA!
I am not "on the fence". I am solidly on the side of the fence that sees the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.
I do NOT see the Universe as something that was "created by" the Great Outsider who has a "Plan" for everything and who knows how it's all going to turn out.
That, to me, is the fairy tail version of the cosmos, born of primitive minds that love their stories!
For me, it is enough that the Universe is an eternal Entity of energy that's EVOLVING.
And I don't think it needs to be "worshipped"...only appreciated .
Now, you have either read this post carefully and -- because you UNDERSTAND what I have said -- you want to rescind your last post to me OR...you still don't get that I don't "believe in God": I believe in the living Entity that is the Universe.
I guess that makes me an IDEALISTIC MATERIALIST!
Iacchus32
Apr28-03, 11:38 PM
Do you or don't you believe in God? If you understood that in fact there was an afterlife, as I do--yeah right!--then I don't think you would be holding the silly notion of a "conscious entity" without ascribing its proper title, i.e., "God." Indeed, you would take the whole thing far more personally.
From the thread, Hell? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1596) ...
From the thread, God vs Big Brother (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1244&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) ...
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by megashawn
If god does truly care, then there is not a heaven or hell, merely afterlife. For any decent person would never inflict life long suffering upon another decent being. If god is not atleast this good, I'll have no part. The thing of it is is that you have to seperate people according to what they believe, otherwise there would be nothing but constant antagonism in the afterlife, in which case it's necessary for hell to exist if only for this reason. Whereas everyone comes into what's called their "ruling love" (that which they love most), which is what guides them and detemines their state of existence in the afterlife.
While it's for this reason that both heaven and hell are very diversified (more than you can imagine), in order to accommodate the myriad of distinctions to be made here. So in this respect everybody finds their own bliss, even for those who are in hell who, as I understand (although rather sado-masochistic in nature), wouldn't have it any other way. This is the only way you can make "everybody" happy.
From the thread, The Tyranny of Heaven (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1072) ...
"Man after death is his own love or his own will.
This has been proved to me by manifold experience. The entire heaven is divided into societies according to differences of good of love; and every spirit who is taken up into heaven and becomes an angel is taken to the society where his love is; and when he arives there he is, as it were, at home, and in the house where he was born; this the angel perceives, and is affiliated with those there that are like himself. When he goes away to another place he feels constantly a kind of resistance, and a longing to return to his like, thus to his ruling love. Thus are affiliations brought about in heaven; and in a like manner in hell, where all are affiliated in accordance with loves that are the opposite of heavenly loves." ~ Emanuel Swedenborg (http://www.swedenborg.com/), Heaven and HellThis is a very good book by the way, and it's highly recommended.
Originally posted by quantumcarl
That's all very interesting. Hard to prove, mind you!If in fact heaven and hell does exist, then it only makes sense that it be done in accord with "ruling love." For then it's possible for an interaction (influx) to exist between these states and the current state of reality in the natural world, without out none becoming the wiser of it. Whereas much as everything gets "broken down" into its essential elements in nature, the same could be applied in the spiritual sense, thus giving it a sense of being organic in makeup ... by which everything is allowed to proceed as "normal" without anyone getting too alarmed about it.
Although from time to time the two realities do get breeched, with all sorts of unpredictable results, much of which can be judged as unhealthy for the "sanity" of the respective individuals involved.
Been there and done that!
http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html
RuroumiKenshin
Apr28-03, 11:50 PM
I am not "on the fence". I am solidly on the side of the fence that sees the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.
The question "Is the universe conscious?" cannot be answered. First of all, you present no reliable evidence that follows the proper criteria for identifying a conscious being. And, most importantly, we have no way of knowing. As I have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, the universe is to us as the atom is to an electron.
An electron has no way of knowing whether or not the atom is alive or not.
M. Gaspar
Apr29-03, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
The question "Is the universe conscious?" cannot be answered. First of all, you present no reliable evidence that follows the proper criteria for identifying a conscious being. And, most importantly, we have no way of knowing. As I have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, the universe is to us as the atom is to an electron.
An electron has no way of knowing whether or not the atom is alive or not.
As I just said on another thread...
"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory...which precedes testing.
AND...some things can only be "known" by their "effects."
If you do not like to speculate about whether the Universe is conscious or not simply because we can't "prove" or "disprove" it, then why do I keep meeting you here?
I say there IS a way to DISCERN the consciousnes of the Universe...by It's EFFECT(S)...and will make a case for this in a future posting.
M. Gaspar
Apr29-03, 08:25 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you or don't you believe in God? If you understood that in fact there was an afterlife, as I do--yeah right!--then I don't think you would be holding the silly notion of a "conscious entity" without ascribing its proper title, i.e., "God." Indeed, you would take the whole thing far more personally.[B]
(WHY IS MY RESPONSE BOLD?)
I cannot believe that, after my last posting, you are still asking me whether I believe in "God"!
No, I do NOT believe in the "God" as described by most...as the Great Outsider or the Big Ringmaster in the Sky!
I see the Universe as a physical/mental/and, yes, SPIRITUAL Being that's EVOLVING with -- and through -- the rest of us.
Do I believe that the dynamic, coherent system of energy that is my consciousness (and spirit?) will continue on AFTER the the vehicle it has been inhabiting goes to the recylcing bin...to await ANOTHER vehicle, or to "float around" doing whatever it is that disembodied coherent systems of consciousness do?
Yes!
As to Heaven and Hell...I believe these are FUNDAMENTALLY STATES OF MIND . I do NOT believe that the Great Outsider "judges" us, then sends us to either eternal damnation or bliss.
I believe, that at the moment of "death", our "spirit" judges ITSELF...by experiencing every emotional effect on every being we have ever effected, directly or indirectly, through our ACTIONS. When I say "experience", I mean REALLY [B]FEEL every emotion we have ever caused in each particular lifetime.
Thus, the very EXPERIENCING of our EFFECT is what constitutes a "Heaven" or "Hell".
Think about Hitler: His spirit is probably STILL PROCESSING the pain he caused directly and indirectly.
The Great Outsider is EXTRANEOUS to this PROCESS...which is a NATURAL FUNCTION of the Universe.
Are we clear now about where I stand?
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
As I just said on another thread...
"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory...which precedes testing.
As I said in the same thread, you are wrong about this chain. Theory is preceded by rigorous testing, not the other way around. You are confusing theory and hypothesis.
AND...some things can only be "known" by their "effects."
Sure, but there is no "effect" that shows any evidence, whatsoever, that the universe is conscious of anything.
If you do not like to speculate about whether the Universe is conscious or not simply because we can't "prove" or "disprove" it, then why do I keep meeting you here?
Don't you realize your error? You are trying to prove a speculation. You can do that in Philosophy. However, you are trying to make your philosophy compatible with science. This you cannot do, until you rigorously test, and make accurate predictions with, your hypothesis.
I say there IS a way to DISCERN the consciousnes of the Universe...by It's EFFECT(S)...and will make a case for this in a future posting.
I await these future postings, as I cannot see any evidence of the universe's being conscious.
M. Gaspar
Apr29-03, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Sure, but there is no "effect" that shows any evidence, whatsoever, that the universe is conscious of anything.
I await these future postings, as I cannot see any evidence of the universe's being conscious. [/B]
Actually, Mentat, you may be seeing "evidence" all the time...but just not recognizing it as such.
Meanwhile, you have nudged me into a GREAT DIRECTION ...and now I am PROCESSING...hoping to come back with something that satisfies more rigorous minds than mine.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr29-03, 11:53 PM
M. Gaspar:
We cannot in any way notice the effects that you speak of. Besides, I guess it is appropriate to say that the definition of life is relative. For one, we only base the criteria for life according to what we have observed on earth. Consequently, we cannot infer whether or not the universe is conscious without criteria upon which to base our conclusion on.
M. Gaspar
Apr29-03, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
M. Gaspar:
We cannot in any way notice the effects that you speak of. Besides, I guess it is appropriate to say that the definition of life is relative. For one, we only base the criteria for life according to what we have observed on earth. Consequently, we cannot infer whether or not the universe is conscious without criteria upon which to base our conclusion on.
I have not, as yet, pointed to any effects...so how can you say that we cannot in any way notice them?
RuroumiKenshin
Apr30-03, 12:09 AM
Then do tell the effects.
M. Gaspar
Apr30-03, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
The question "Is the universe conscious?" cannot be answered. First of all, you present no reliable evidence that follows the proper criteria for identifying a conscious being. And, most importantly, we have no way of knowing. As I have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, the universe is to us as the atom is to an electron.
An electron has no way of knowing whether or not the atom is alive or not.
I don't know to what "proper criteria" you refer...but I will say that ideas EVOLVE...like everything else. Thus, present definitions might be expanded.
As to "reliable evidence"...I haven't presented ANY "evidence" at all ...as yet.
Finally (but not really), your contention that certain questions "cannot be answered" might be true. However, sometimes a statement such as that turns out to be a little premature.
There was a time when we had "no way of knowing" whether atoms existed...let alone elementary particles.
We, at present, have "no way of knowing" whether "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" exist..as they are only predicted by their EFFECT.
For the sake of exploration -- or even conversation -- let us not jump to conclusions that curse the quest.
M. Gaspar
Apr30-03, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Then do tell the effects.
In due time.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, Mentat, you may be seeing "evidence" all the time...but just not recognizing it as such.
Meanwhile, you have nudged me into a GREAT DIRECTION ...and now I am PROCESSING...hoping to come back with something that satisfies more rigorous minds than mine.
Flattery. Your mind is every bit as rigorous as mine. I just happen to disagree with you, which is a quality that you don't have [;)].
RuroumiKenshin
Apr30-03, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
In due time.
Are you working on your own hypothesis?
heusdens
May1-03, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Of course time had to exist in order for the BB to occur. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Space had to exist as well, for strings to exist.
what's the theory of eternal inflation?
The theory of inflation is a further developed inflation theory.
Inflation theory initially explained what happened at the begin of the big bang, a rapid (exponentially) expansion of space, which flattens out all the inhomogenities, and causes the visible universe to be so homogenous as it looks now.
The theory of eternal inflation, just states that inflation can reproduce itself, and therefore this scenario doesn't need to have a beginning in time.
The theory of inflation is somewhat complex, it is in fact field dynamics. In inflation theory the material reality is brought back to one or more sclarar fields, that change in time/space. Such changes, can built up in small regions to such an extend that inflation (the rapid expansion of space) occurs, causing the effect of a big bang.
The theory of eternal inflation is developed by Andrei Linde. So far it is a good candidate for describing the beginning of the universe, and solves a number of difficulties in the current big bang theory (why is space so flat, why is the universe so homogeneous, why is the universe so large, what caused galaxy formation, etc).
For more info search in google with the following key words:
"inflation" "eternal" "andrei linde"
heusdens
May1-03, 07:36 AM
Inflation for Beginners
JOHN GRIBBIN
INFLATION has become a cosmological buzzword in the 1990s. No self-respecting theory of the Universe is complete without a reference to inflation -- and at the same time there is now a bewildering variety of different versions of inflation to choose from. Clearly, what's needed is a beginner's guide to inflation, where newcomers to cosmology can find out just what this exciting development is all about. This is it -- new readers start here.
The reason why something like inflation was needed in cosmology was highlighted by discussions of two key problems in the 1970s. The first of these is the horizon problem -- the puzzle that the Universe looks the same on opposite sides of the sky (opposite horizons) even though there has not been time since the Big Bang for light (or anything else) to travel across the Universe and back. So how do the opposite horizons "know" how to keep in step with each other? The second puzzle is called the flatness problem This is the puzzle that the spacetime of the Universe is very nearly flat, which means that the Universe sits just on the dividing line between eternal expansion and eventual recollapse.
The flatness problem can be understood in terms of the density of the Universe. The density parameter is a measure of the amount of gravitating material in the Universe, usually denoted by the Greek letter omega (O), and also known as the flatness parameter. It is defined in such a way that if spacetime is exactly flat then O = 1. Before the development of the idea of inflation, one of the great puzzles in cosmology was the fact that the actual density of the Universe today is very close to this critical value -- certainly within a factor of 10. This is curious because as the Universe expands away from the Big Bang the expansion will push the density parameter away from the critical value.
If the Universe starts out with the parameter less than one, O gets smaller as the Universe ages, while if it starts out bigger than one O gets bigger as the Universe ages. The fact that O is between 0.1 and 1 today means that in the first second of the Big Bang it was precisely 1 to within 1 part in 1060). This makes the value of the density parameter in the beginning one of the most precisely determined numbers in all of science, and the natural inference is that the value is, and always has been, exactly 1. One important implication of this is that there must be a large amount of dark matter in the Universe. Another is that the Universe was made flat by inflation.
Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion, blowing the size of what is now the observable Universe up from a region far smaller than a proton to about the size of a grapefruit (or even bigger) in a small fraction of a second. This process would smooth out spacetime to make the Universe flat, and would also resolve the horizon problem by taking regions of space that were once close enough to have got to know each other well and spreading them far apart, on opposite sides of the visible Universe today.
Inflation became established as the standard model of the very early Universe in the 1980s. It achieved this success not only because it resolves many puzzles about the nature of the Universe, but because it did so using the grand unified theories (GUTs) and understanding of quantum theory developed by particle physicists completely independently of any cosmological studies. These theories of the particle world had been developed with no thought that they might be applied in cosmology (they were in no sense "designed" to tackle all the problems they turned out to solve), and their success in this area suggested to many people that they must be telling us something of fundamental importance about the Universe.
The marriage of particle physics (the study of the very small) and cosmology (the study of the very large) seems to provide an explanation of how the Universe began, and how it got to be the way it is. Inflation is therefore regarded as the most important development in cosmological thinking since the discovery that the Universe is expanding first suggested that it began in a Big Bang.
Taken at face value, the observed expansion of the Universe implies that it was born out of a singularity, a point of infinite density, some 15 billion years ago (cosmologists still disagree about exactly how old the Universe is, but the exact age doesn't affect the argument). Quantum physics tells us that it is meaningless to talk in quite such extreme terms, and that instead we should consider the expansion as having started from a region no bigger across than the so-called Planck length (10-35m), when the density was not infinite but "only" some 1094 grams per cubic centimetre. These are the absolute limits on size and density allowed by quantum physics.
On that picture, the first puzzle is how anything that dense could ever expand -- it would have an enormously strong gravitational field, turning it into a black hole and snuffing it out of existence (back into the singularity) as soon as it was born. But it turns out that inflation can prevent this happening, while quantum physics allows the entire Universe to appear, in this supercompact form, out of nothing at all, as a cosmic free lunch. The idea that the Universe may have appeared out of nothing at all, and contains zero energy overall, was developed by Edward Tryon, of the City University in New York, who suggested in the 1970s, that it might have appeared out of nothing as a so-called vacuum fluctuation, allowed by quantum theory.
Quantum uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time. The less energy is involved, the longer the bubble can exist. Curiously, the energy in a gravitational field is negative, while the energy locked up in matter is positive. If the Universe is exactly flat , then as Tryon pointed out the two numbers cancel out, and the overall energy of the Universe is precisely zero. In that case, the quantum rules allow it to last forever. If you find this mind-blowing, you are in good company. George Gamow told in his book My World Line (Viking, New York, reprinted 1970) how he was having a conversation with Albert Einstein while walking through Princeton in the 1940s. Gamow casually mentioned that one of his colleagues had pointed out to him that according to Einstein's equations a star could be created out of nothing at all, because its negative gravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy. "Einstein stopped in his tracks," says Gamow, "and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down".
Unfortunately, if a quantum bubble (about as big as the Planck length) containing all the mass-energy of the Universe (or even a star) did appear out of nothing at all, its intense gravitational field would (unless something else intervened) snuff it out of existence immediately, crushing it into a singularity. So the free lunch Universe seemed at first like an irrelevant speculation -- but, as with the problems involving the extreme flatness of spacetime, and its appearance of extreme homogeneity and isotropy (most clearly indicated by the uniformity of the background radiation), the development of the inflationary scenario showed how to remove this difficulty and allow such a quantum fluctuation to expand exponentially up to macroscopic size before gravity could crush it out of existence.. All of these problems would be resolved if something gave the Universe a violent outward push (in effect, acting like antigravity) when it was still about a Planck length in size. Such a small region of space would be too tiny, initially, to contain irregularities, so it would start off homogeneous and isotropic. There would have been plenty of time for signals travelling at the speed of light to have criss-crossed the ridiculously tiny volume, so there is no horizon problem -- both sides of the embryonic universe are "aware" of each other. And spacetime itself gets flattened by the expansion, in much the same way that the wrinkly surface of a prune becomes a smooth, flat surface when the prune is placed in water and swells up. As in the standard Big Bang model, we can still think of the Universe as like the skin of an expanding balloon, but now we have to think of it as an absolutely enormous balloon that was hugely inflated during the first split second of its existence.
[to be continued]
heusdens
May1-03, 07:40 AM
The reason why the GUTs created such a sensation when they were applied to cosmology is that they predict the existence of exactly the right kind of mechanisms to do this trick. They are called scalar fields, and they are associated with the splitting apart of the original grand unified force into the fundamental forces we know today, as the Universe began to expand and cool. Gravity itself would have split off at the Planck time, 10-43 of a second, and the strong nuclear force by about 10(exp-35) of a second. Within about 10-32 of a second, the scalar fields would have done their work, doubling the size of the Universe at least once every 10-34 of a second (some versions of inflation suggest even more rapid expansion than this).
This may sound modest, but it would mean that in 1032 of a second there were 100 doublings. This rapid expansion is enough to take a quantum fluctuation 1020 times smaller than a proton and inflate it to a sphere about 10 cm across in about 15 x 1033 seconds. At that point, the scalar field has done its work of kick-starting the Universe, and is settling down, giving up its energy and leaving a hot fireball expanding so rapidly that even though gravity can now begin to do its work of pulling everything back into a Big Crunch it will take hundreds of billions of years to first halt the expansion and then reverse it.
Curiously, this kind of exponential expansion of spacetime is exactly described by one of the first cosmological models developed using the general theory of relativity, by Willem de Sitter in 1917. For more than half a century, this de Sitter model seemed to be only a mathematical curiosity, of no relevance to the real Universe; but it is now one of the cornerstones of inflationary cosmology.
When the general theory of relativity was published in 1916, de Sitter reviewed the theory and developed his own ideas in a series of three papers which he sent to the Royal Astronomical Society in London. The third of these papers included discussion of possible cosmological models -- both what turned out to be an expanding universe (the first model of this kind to be developed, although the implications were not fully appreciated in 1917) and an oscillating universe model.
De Sitter's solution to Einstein's equations seemed to describe an empty, static Universe (empty spacetime). But in the early 1920s it was realised that if a tiny amount of matter was added to the model (in the form of particles scattered throughout the spacetime), they would recede from each other exponentially fast as the spacetime expanded. This means that the distance between two particles would double repeatedly on the same timescale, so they would be twice as far apart after one tick of some cosmic clock, four times as far apart after two ticks, eight times as far apart after three ticks, sixteen times as far apart after four ticks, and so on. It would be as if each step you took down the road took you twice as far as the previous step.
This seemed to be completely unrealistic; even when the expansion of the Universe was discovered, later in the 1920s, it turned out to be much more sedate. In the expanding Universe as we see it now, the distances between "particles" (clusters of galaxies) increase steadily -- they take one step for each click of the cosmic clock, so the distance is increased by a total of two steps after two clicks, three steps after three clicks, and so on. In the 1980s, however, when the theory of inflation suggested that the Universe really did undergo a stage of exponential expansion during the first split-second after its birth, this inflationary exponential expansion turned out to be exactly described by the de Sitter model, the first successful cosmological solution to Einstein's equations of the general theory of relativity.
One of the peculiarities of inflation is that it seems to take place faster than the speed of light. Even light takes 30 billionths of a second (3 x 10(exp-10) sec) to cross a single centimetre, and yet inflation expands the Universe from a size much smaller than a proton to 10 cm across in only 15 x 10(exp-33) sec. This is possible because it is spacetime itself that is expanding, carrying matter along for the ride; nothing is moving through spacetime faster than light, either during inflation or ever since. Indeed, it is just because the expansion takes place so quickly that matter has no time to move while it is going on and the process "freezes in" the original uniformity of the primordial quantum bubble that became our Universe.
The inflationary scenario has already gone through several stages of development during its short history. The first inflationary model was developed by Alexei Starobinsky, at the L. D. Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics in Moscow, at the end of the 1970s -- but it was not then called "inflation". It was a very complicated model based on a quantum theory of gravity, but it caused a sensation among cosmologists in what was then the Soviet Union, becoming known as the "Starobinsky model" of the Universe. Unfortunately, because of the difficulties Soviet scientists still had in travelling abroad or communicating with colleagues outside the Soviet sphere of influence at that time, the news did not spread outside their country.
In 1981, Alan Guth, then at MIT, published a different version of the inflationary scenario, not knowing anything of Starobinsky's work. This version was more accessible in both senses of the word -- it was easier to understand, and Guth was based in the US, able to discuss his ideas freely with colleagues around the world. And as a bonus, Guth came up with the catchy name "inflation" for the process he was describing. There were obvious flaws with the specific details of Guth's original model (which he acknowledged at the time). In particular, Guth's model left the Universe after inflation filled with a mess of bubbles, all expanding in their own way and colliding with one another. We see no evidence for these bubbles in the real Universe, so obviously the simplest model of inflation couldn't be right. But it was this version of the idea that made every cosmologist aware of the power of inflation.
In October 1981, there was an international meeting in Moscow, where inflation was a major talking point. Stephen Hawking presented a paper claiming that inflation could not be made to work at all, but the Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde presented an improved version, called "new inflation", which got around the difficulties with Guth's model. Ironically, Linde was the official translator for Hawking's talk, and had the embarrassing task of offering the audience the counter-argument to his own work! But after the formal presentations Hawking was persuaded that Linde was right, and inflation might be made to work after all. Within a few months, the new inflationary scenario was also published by Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, and by the end of 1982 inflation was well established. Linde has been involved in most of the significant developments with the theory since then. The next step forward came with the realization that there need not be anything special about the Planck- sized region of spacetime that expanded to become our Universe. If that was part of some larger region of spacetime in which all kinds of scalar fields were at work, then only the regions in which those fields produced inflation could lead to the emergence of a large universe like our own. Linde called this "chaotic inflation", because the scalar fields can have any value at different places in the early super-universe; it is the standard version of inflation today, and can be regarded as an example of the kind of reasoning associated with the anthropic principle (but note that this use of the term "chaos" is like the everyday meaning implying a complicated mess, and has nothing to do with the mathematical subject known as "chaos theory").
The idea of chaotic inflation led to what is (so far) the ultimate development of the inflationary scenario. The great unanswered question in standard Big Bang cosmology is what came "before" the singularity. It is often said that the question is meaningless, since time itself began at the singularity. But chaotic inflation suggests that our Universe grew out of a quantum fluctuation in some pre-existing region of spacetime, and that exactly equivalent processes can create regions of inflation within our own Universe. In effect, new universes bud off from our Universe, and our Universe may itself have budded off from another universe, in a process which had no beginning and will have no end. A variation on this theme suggests that the "budding" process takes place through black holes, and that every time a black hole collapses into a singularity it "bounces" out into another set of spacetime dimensions, creating a new inflationary universe -- this is called the baby universe scenario.
[to be continued]
heusdens
May1-03, 07:42 AM
There are similarities between the idea of eternal inflation and a self-reproducing universe and the version of the Steady State hypothesis developed in England by Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar, with their C-field playing the part of the scalar field that drives inflation. As Hoyle wryly pointed out at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in London in December 1994, the relevant equations in inflation theory are exactly the same as in his version of the Steady State idea, but with the letter "C" replaced by the Greek "Ø". "This," said Hoyle (tongue firmly in cheek) "makes all the difference in the world".
Modern proponents of the inflationary scenario arrived at these equations entirely independently of Hoyle's approach, and are reluctant to accept this analogy, having cut their cosmological teeth on the Big Bang model. Indeed, when Guth was asked, in 1980, how the then new idea of inflation related to the Steady State theory, he is reported as replying "what is the Steady State theory?" But although inflation is generally regarded as a development of Big Bang cosmology, it is better seen as marrying the best features of both the Big Bang and the Steady State scenarios.
This might all seem like a philosophical debate as futile as the argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, except for the fact that observations of the background radiation by COBE showed exactly the pattern of tiny irregularities that the inflationary scenario predicts. One of the first worries about the idea of inflation (long ago in 1981) was that it might be too good to be true. In particular, if the process was so efficient at smoothing out the Universe, how could irregularities as large as galaxies, clusters of galaxies and so on ever have arisen? But when the researchers looked more closely at the equations they realised that quantum fluctuations should still have been producing tiny ripples in the structure of the Universe even when our Universe was only something like 10(exp-25) of a centimetre across -- a hundred million times bigger than the Planck length.
The theory said that inflation should have left behind an expanded version of these fluctuations, in the form of irregularities in the distribution of matter and energy in the Universe. These density perturbations would have left an imprint on the background radiation at the time matter and radiation decoupled (about 300,000 years after the Big Bang), producing exactly the kind of nonuniformity in the background radiation that has now been seen, initially by COBE and later by other instruments. After decoupling, the density fluctuations grew to become the large scale structure of the Universe revealed today by the distribution of galaxies. This means that the COBE observations are actually giving us information about what was happening in the Universe when it was less than 10-20 of a second old.
No other theory can explain both why the Universe is so uniform overall, and yet contains exactly the kind of "ripples" represented by the distribution of galaxies through space and by the variations in the background radiation. This does not prove that the inflationary scenario is correct, but it is worth remembering that had COBE found a different pattern of fluctuations (or no fluctuations at all) that would have proved the inflationary scenario wrong. In the best scientific tradition, the theory made a major and unambiguous prediction which did "come true". Inflation also predicts that the primordial perturbations may have left a trace in the form of gravitational radiation with particular characteristics, and it is hoped that detectors sensitive enough to identify this characteristic radiation may be developed within the next ten or twenty years.
The clean simplicity of this simple picture of inflation has now, however, begun to be obscured by refinements, as inflationary cosmologists add bells and whistles to their models to make them match more closely the Universe we see about us. Some of the bells and whistles, it has to be said, are studied just for fun. Linde himself has taken great delight in pushing inflation to extremes, and offering entertaining new insights into how the Universe might be constructed. For example, could our Universe exist on the inside of a single magnetic monopole produced by cosmic inflation? According to Linde, it is at least possible, and may be likely. And in a delicious touch of irony, Linde, who now works at Stanford University, made this outrageous claim in a lecture at a workshop on the Birth of the Universe held recently in Rome, where the view of Creation is usually rather different. One of the reasons why theorists came up with the idea of inflation in the first place was precisely to get rid of magnetic monopoles -- strange particles carrying isolated north or south magnetic fields, predicted by many Grand Unified Theories of physics but never found in nature. Standard models of inflation solve the "monopole problem" by arguing that the seed from which our entire visible Universe grew was a quantum fluctuation so small that it only contained one monopole. That monopole is still out there, somewhere in the Universe, but it is highly unlikely that it will ever pass our way.
But Linde has discovered that, according to theory, the conditions that create inflation persist inside a magnetic monopole even after inflation has halted in the Universe at large. Such a monopole would look like a magnetically charged black hole, connecting our Universe through a wormhole in spacetime to another region of inflating spacetime. Within this region of inflation, quantum processes can produce monopole-antimonopole pairs, which then separate exponentially rapidly as a result of the inflation. Inflation then stops, leaving an expanding Universe rather like our own which may contain one or two monopoles, within each of which there are more regions of inflating spacetime.
The result is a never-ending fractal structure, with inflating universes embedded inside each other and connected through the magnetic monopole wormholes. Our Universe may be inside a monopole which is inside another universe which is inside another monopole, and so on indefinitely. What Linde calls "the continuous creation of exponentially expanding space" means that "monopoles by themselves can solve the monopole problem". Although it seems bizarre, the idea is, he stresses, "so simple that it certainly deserves further investigation".
That variation on the theme really is just for fun, and it is hard to see how it could ever be compared with observations of the real Universe. But most of the modifications to inflation now being made are in response to new observations, and in particular to the suggestion that spacetime may not be quite "flat" after all. In the mid-1990s, many studies (including observations made by the refurbished Hubble Space Telescope) began to suggest that there might not be quite enough matter in the Universe to make it perfectly flat -- most of the observations suggest that there is only 20 per cent or 30 per cent as much matter around as the simplest versions of inflation require. The shortfall is embarrassing, because one of the most widely publicised predictions of simple inflation was the firm requirement of exactly 100 per cent of this critical density of matter. But there are ways around the difficulty; and here are two of them to be going on with.
The first suggestion is almost heretical, in the light of the way astronomy has developed since the time of Copernicus. Is it possible that we are living near the centre of the Universe? For centuries, the history of astronomy has seen humankind displaced from any special position. First the Earth was seen to revolve around the Sun, then the Sun was seen to be an insignificant member of the Milky Way Galaxy, then the Galaxy was seen to be an ordinary member of the cosmos. But now comes the suggestion that the "ordinary" place to find observers like us may be in the middle of a bubble in a much greater volume of expanding space.
The conventional version of inflation says that our entire visible Universe is just one of many bubbles of inflation, each doing their own thing somewhere out in an eternal sea of chaotic inflation, but that the process of rapid expansion forces spacetime in all the bubbles to be flat. A useful analogy is with the bubbles that form in a bottle of fizzy cola when the top is opened. But that suggestion, along with other cherished cosmological beliefs, has now been challenged by Linde, working with his son Dmitri Linde (of CalTech) and Arthur Mezhlumian (also of Stanford).
Linde and his colleagues point out that the Universe we live in is like a hole in a sea of superdense, exponentially expanding inflationary cosmic material, within which there are other holes. All kinds of bubble universes will exist, and it is possible to work out the statistical nature of their properties. In particular, the two Lindes and Mezhlumian have calculated the probability of finding yourself in a region of this super- Universe with a particular density -- for example, the density of "our" Universe.
[to be continued]
heusdens
May1-03, 07:44 AM
A double dose of inflation may be something to make the Government's hair turn grey -- but it could be just what cosmologists need to rescue their favourite theory of the origin of the Universe. By turning inflation on twice, they have found a way to have all the benefits of the inflationary scenario, while still leaving the Universe in an "open" state, so that it will expand forever.
In those simplest inflation models, remember, the big snag is that after inflation even the observable Universe is left like a mass of bubbles, each expanding in its own way. We see no sign of this structure, which has led to all the refinements of the basic model. Now, however, Martin Bucher and Neil Turok, of Princeton University, working with Alfred Goldhaber, of the State University of New York, have turned this difficulty to advantage.
They suggest that after the Universe had been homogenised by the original bout of inflation, a second burst of inflation could have occurred within one of the bubbles. As inflation begins (essentially at a point), the density is effectively "reset" to zero, and rises towards the critical density as inflation proceeds and energy from the inflation process is turned into mass. But because the Universe has already been homogenised, there is no need to require this bout of inflation to last until the density reaches the critical value. It can stop a little sooner, leaving an open bubble (what we see as our entire visible Universe) to carry on expanding at a more sedate rate. They actually use what looked like the fatal flaw in Guth's model as the basis for their scenario. According to Bucher and his colleagues, an end product looking very much like the Universe we live in can arise naturally in this way, with no "fine tuning" of the inflationary parameters. All they have done is to use the very simplest possible version of inflation, going back to Alan Guth's work, but to apply it twice. And you don't have to stop there. Once any portion of expanding spacetime has been smoothed out by inflation, new inflationary bubbles arising inside that volume of spacetime will all be pre-smoothed and can end up with any amount of matter from zero to the critical density (but no more). This should be enough to make everybody happy. Indeed, the biggest problem now is that the vocabulary of cosmology doesn't quite seem adequate to the task of describing all this activity.
The term Universe, with the capital "U", is usually used for everything that we can ever have knowledge of, the entire span of space and time accessible to our instruments, now and in the future. This may seem like a fairly comprehensive definition, and in the past it has traditionally been regarded as synonymous with the entirety of everything that exists. But the development of ideas such as inflation suggests that there may be something else beyond the boundaries of the observable Universe -- regions of space and time that are unobservable in principle, not just because light from them has not yet had time to reach us, or because our telescopes are not sensitive enough to detect their light.
This has led to some ambiguity in the use of the term "Universe". Some people restrict it to the observable Universe, while others argue that it should be used to refer to all of space and time. If we use "Universe" as the name for our own expanding bubble of spacetime, everything that is in principle visible to our telescopes, then maybe the term "Cosmos" can be used to refer to the entirety of space and time, within which (if the inflationary scenario is correct) there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, other universes with which we can never communicate. Cosmologists ought to be happy with the suggestion, since it makes their subject infinitely bigger and therefore infinitely more important!
Further reading: John Gribbin, Companion to the Cosmos, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996.
M. Gaspar
May1-03, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Are you working on your own hypothesis?
Yes, I THOUGHT I was...but the more I "surf the net" the more I have come to see that I've been "scooped"!!!
Still, I seem to bring out enough disagreement within these threads to keep it interesting (for me)...while pointing to the "fact" that so many "aren't there yet".
[;)]
M. Gaspar
May28-03, 04:18 PM
Iacchus:
Here it is. Input welcome.
Iacchus32
May28-03, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Iacchus:
Here it is. Input welcome. Did you check out the other thread, The Great Outsider (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2564)? ... I thought it might be better if we started from scratch. Let me know what you think, Okay?
maximus
May28-03, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
concious is a byproduct of a series of evolutionary events that took place on earth. why are humans always trying to personify inanimate objects by giving them a concious. i think we simply cannot understand what it truly means to be 'unconcious'.
pelastration
May28-03, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by maximus
i think we simply cannot understand what it truly means to be 'unconcious'.
That must be true!
"understand" is contradicting with "unconscious".
It's like eating soup with a fork.
By using the brain you will not 'know' what unconsciousness is.
Learning how to create THETA brainwaves may give you although some access to deeper areas of collective unconsciousness (CG Jung) and areas of interconnectedness.
maximus
May28-03, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by pelastration
It's like eating soup with a fork.
i have occasionally eaten soup with a fork.
pelastration
May28-03, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by maximus
i have occasionally eaten soup with a fork.
[:D]
yah ... I do it always with Chinese sticks.
[6)]
M. Gaspar
May29-03, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by pelastration
[:D]
yah ... I do it always with Chinese sticks.
[6)]
...that's why they're so thin !
M. Gaspar
May29-03, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by maximus
concious is a byproduct of a series of evolutionary events that took place on earth. why are humans always trying to personify inanimate objects by giving them a concious. i think we simply cannot understand what it truly means to be 'unconcious'.
Are you saying that the evolution of consciousness in the Universe is an "accident"?
I say there's a "bit" of consciousness in EVERYTHING -- elementary particles, galaxies, the works !
If "matter" (i.e., bound-up energy) evolves via EXISTING INGREDIENTS ...perhaps CONSCIOUSNESS is an inherent , pre-existing "ingredient", too.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Are you saying that the evolution of consciousness in the Universe is an "accident"?
That's what a good majority of Evolutionary Biologists will tell you (if not all of them).
I say there's a "bit" of consciousness in EVERYTHING -- elementary particles, galaxies, the works !
And might one ask why you think this way?
If "matter" (i.e., bound-up energy) evolves via EXISTING INGREDIENTS ...perhaps CONSCIOUSNESS is an inherent , pre-existing "ingredient", too.
Then what is the purpose of complex collections of neurons (brains)?
M. Gaspar
May29-03, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
That's what a good majority of Evolutionary Biologists will tell you (if not all of them).
Historically speaking, many people have held view at the SAME TIME that, eventually, were proven "wrong"...or incomplete.
What the MAJORITY of EXPERTS think should not prevent a person from considering other possibilities.
And might one ask why you think this way?
A series of thoughts led me to this possibility. I am, at this time, gathering and organizing said thoughts so as to make a coherent -- if not believeable -- case.
Suffice it to say here that I'm starting from the premise that the Universe is an eternal, closed system with inherent forces, processes and INGREDIENTS that go into creating all that is...and that among those "ingredients" is CONSCIOUSNESS.
That a "kernal"of consciousness exists in EVERYTHING would account for certain of my (and others') life experiences that seem to indicate an "inner-connectedness" that operates beyond the physical.
Then what is the purpose of complex collections of neurons (brains)?
How does the speculation that "consciousness exists -- to varying degrees -- in all things PRECLUDE the comlex operation of the brain?
All I'm saying is that the "substance" of consciousness existed (EXISTS) as RAW "MATERIAL" for the ACCRETION of the "level of consciousness" that is "centered" in the brain...tho, I need to add, not CONFINED to it. Hence, the "inter-connectedness" I'm speaking of.
I realize my responses are clumsy and unconvincing at this time, but I'll get better a stating my case by responding to thoughtful objections such as yours.
heusdens
May29-03, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I have the will to live! ... Yes, but where did that will come from? ... Out of non-existence?
A property of matter inherited by 3 billion years of evolution.
Iacchus32
May29-03, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by heusdens
A property of matter inherited by 3 billion years of evolution. And yet "the fact" that I'm conscious tells me everything, even where I came from ...
Alexander
May29-03, 06:15 PM
Define "conscious" (to make sure that we and you know what we are talking about, and also to be sure that we talk about the same animal).
Iacchus32
May29-03, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Alexander
Define "conscious" (to make sure that we and you know what we are talking about, and also to be sure that we talk about the same animal). Don't you know what consciousness is? Aren't you "aware" of "the fact" that I'm talking to you? If you are, then doesn't that suggest you are conscious?
M. Gaspar
Jun1-03, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Alexander
Define "conscious" (to make sure that we and you know what we are talking about, and also to be sure that we talk about the same animal).
Thanks for the lead. Had much about "symmetry"...a peripheral interest.
Here's what I'm talking about with regard to consciousness:
Consciousness is a "substance" -- albeit massless -- that exists "within" (as an integral part of) -- all matter...from elementary particles to large dynamic coherent systems like galaxies...or the Universe Itself.
You may dismiss this proposition as unfounded and unproveable...but given a few more posts, I could make a reasonable case.
Iacchus32
Jun2-03, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Thanks for the lead. Had much about "symmetry"...a peripheral interest.
Here's what I'm talking about with regard to consciousness:
Consciousness is a "substance" -- albeit massless -- that exists "within" (as an integral part of) -- all matter...from elementary particles to large dynamic coherent systems like galaxies...or the Universe Itself.
You may dismiss this proposition as unfounded and unproveable...but given a few more posts, I could make a reasonable case. But isn't consciousness also a property? The property that one "knows" one exists?
M. Gaspar
Jun2-03, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
But isn't consciousness also a property? The property that one "knows" one exists?
Before I respond, let me say that the following in PURE SPECULATION:
"Consciousness" is a "property" because we deem it so...but only AFTER it has "accreted" into a "dynamic coherent system" -- such as the human mind -- that is recognizable (by us) to deem it so.
In other words, consciousness COULD be a "substance" that is integral to ALL matter -- elemental or large systems -- but when, as an example, it "resides" in a ROCK, we cannot recognize it as such because a rock is not DOING THINGS that we associate with being CONSCIOUS.
I believe that consciousness -- as a PROPERTY -- is on a continuum so that elementary particles might have a "miniscule awareness of self" which may or may not include "context" (its place in the scheme of things) while entitites such as ourselves have a little MORE self-awareness and sence of context.
The "operational component" of the ACCRETION OF CONSCIOUSNESS might be similar to the accretion of "matter" (which is, remember, bound-up energy; hence the quotes)...that a "force" corresponding to gravity operates to "pull" the "substance" of consciousness together...not necessarilly in a "mass" ...but as a far-reaching NETWORK.
And please don't remind me that gravity is NOT a "force" but an effect of mass on space. Whatever it is, it serves the FUNCTION of drawing matter together into dynamic coherent systems ...and I am PROPOSING that consciousness accretes the same way .
Remember: there was a time, many moons ago, when someone proposed that matter was comprised of "atoms". Hundreds of years later, we finally "saw" them (via a scanning tunneling microscope). Matter didn't arise/coallesce from "nothing"; it came from elementary particles that began to fuse.
I am saying that the PROPERTY of CONSCIOUSNESS did not come from "nothing" either: it came from the ACCRETION of "elementary particles" of consciousness which, like "matter", was FRAGMENTED out of a Primal Singularity at the time of the (most recent) Big Bang.
Iacchus32
Jun2-03, 02:21 PM
Or maybe consciousness is a "binding element" which draws attention to itself, for instance in the example of a rock, where the rock says -- through our conscious awareness of it -- "Hey, I am a rock."
Really, all I know is that I am conscious, and it belies the fact that I have a soul.
M. Gaspar
Jun2-03, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or maybe consciousness is a "binding element" which draws attention to itself, for instance in the example of a rock, where the rock says -- through our conscious awareness of it -- "Hey, I am a rock."
Really, all I know is that I am conscious, and it belies the fact that I have a soul.
Say what???
How does having consciousness "belie the fact" that one has a soul? Taking my speculations a bit farther, I could say that "spirit" is a "substance" too -- like consciousness and baryonic matter -- which ALSO exists as PART of Everything That Is.
Of course, spirit or soul is even HARDER to prove -- or even TALK ABOUT -- than consciousness. At least we can EXPERIENCE our OWN consciousness more or less "objectively"...but spirit? Its PURELY SUBJECTIVE.
Still, I prefer to believe that there is a "spiritual component" to the Universe...tho I'm not prepared to characterize what it may be. Perhaps "spirit" is the EMOTIONAL component of the Universe, whereas "matter" is Its PHYSICALITY and "consciousness" is It's MIND.
Perhaps on another thread we can discuss the "substance of spirit"...but I'd personally rather wait until I feel I have completely made my case regarding consciousness.
To do this, I will be responding to some month-old posts which I have printed out from SEVERAL threads. All I need is TIME. Good luck with that.[g)]
Iacchus32
Jun3-03, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Say what???
How does having consciousness "belie the fact" that one has a soul? Taking my speculations a bit farther, I could say that "spirit" is a "substance" too -- like consciousness and baryonic matter -- which ALSO exists as PART of Everything That Is.
Of course, spirit or soul is even HARDER to prove -- or even TALK ABOUT -- than consciousness. At least we can EXPERIENCE our OWN consciousness more or less "objectively"...but spirit? Its PURELY SUBJECTIVE.This is not hard for me to prove, because I "know" that I exist. This is the ground of my being, which is my soul (identity).
Still, I prefer to believe that there is a "spiritual component" to the Universe...tho I'm not prepared to characterize what it may be. Perhaps "spirit" is the EMOTIONAL component of the Universe, whereas "matter" is Its PHYSICALITY and "consciousness" is It's MIND.The Father (Mind) ... The Son (Flesh/Heart) ... The Holy Ghost (Soul) ... These are the three components to existence which, should be addressed as One (not three).
Perhaps on another thread we can discuss the "substance of spirit"...but I'd personally rather wait until I feel I have completely made my case regarding consciousnessYes, spirit is the element of the soul, which is tied to our "emotional state" -- "of being." And yet spirit also "conveys" consciousness.
To do this, I will be responding to some month-old posts which I have printed out from SEVERAL threads. All I need is TIME. Good luck with that.[g)] Okee dokee ... [;)]
M. Gaspar
Jun3-03, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
. Really, all I know is that I am conscious, and it belies the fact that I have a soul.
"Belies" means "to show to be false". Thus, your sentense says that the fact that you are conscious shows that having a soul is NOT TRUE. Which, I don't think is what you mean.
M. Gaspar
Jun3-03, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
This is not hard for me to prove, because I "know" that I exist. This is the ground of my being, which is my soul (identity).
The Father (Mind) ... The Son (Flesh/Heart) ... The Holy Ghost (Soul) ... These are the three components to existence which, should be addressed as One (not three).
Yes, spirit is the element of the soul, which is tied to our "emotional state" -- "of being." And yet spirit also "conveys" consciousness.
Okee dokee ... [;)]
I personally have to FORCE MYSELF to "identify" with my "soul". Mostly, I'm focused "here".
However, in moments when I'm making a DECISION as to how to RESPOND to a given situation -- especially one that tempts me to be LESS than my "highest self" -- I look to my own SPIRIT to point the way to my HIGHEST RESPONSE.
Sometimes, I cannot resist the temptation -- say, to reveal my "impatience" or "annoyance" -- and indulge MYSELF...and IGNORE my SOUL. Then I "mop up"!!!
Regarding the "Trinity" of which you speak: I DO NOT COMPUTE...except for the fact that EVERYTHING -- whatever that "everything" might be -- is ONE!
pelastration
Jun3-03, 08:59 AM
http://home.sprynet.com/~jowolf/essay.htm#THE%20WHOLE%20AND%20ITS%20PARTS:%20THE%2 0HOLON
Alexander
Jun3-03, 11:30 AM
16 pages of "blah blah blah..." and not a single definition of the object of discussion (consciouseness).
So, WHAT are you talking about (and for so long)?
pelastration
Jun3-03, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Alexander
So, WHAT are you talking about (and for so long)?
Markopoulou Kalamara can explain the structure of spacetime. In particular, she argues that the abstract loops can produce one of the most distinctive features of Einstein's theory-- light cones, regions of spacetime within which light, or anything else, can reach a particular event.
The problem is that you have not the imagination to understand that Kalamara's abstract loops can explain everything if it is a membrane that loops. She stopped to early in her logic excercise.
But Alexander ... thanks for the interesting link (in your new thread on the hurdles).
Alexander
Jun3-03, 12:31 PM
What I am saying - define the object of discussion.
WHAT is being discussed?
M. Gaspar
Jun3-03, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by pelastration
http://home.sprynet.com/~jowolf/essay.htm#THE%20WHOLE%20AND%20ITS%20PARTS:%20THE%2 0HOLON
Pelastration:
I couldn't "get there from here"...couldn't connect.
Is your response to Alexander enough for me to know?
Remember, I'm not into "structure" [zz)] ...only "process" [8)] .
M. Gaspar
Jun3-03, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Alexander
What I am saying - define the object of discussion.
WHAT is being discussed?
I know you're not talking to me because all I DO is talk about consciousness!
As I said before, went to the site you referenced, and found it interesting. I even emailed one of the "principals" (named Hill) about something specific...tho I doubt if he'll respond.
What's YOUR take on consciousness?
akhenaten
Jun3-03, 02:25 PM
This is a REALLY long thread, so you'll have to forgive me for not reading it to check this has not already been discussed.
"The natural interpretation of both the quantum eraser and the simpler, basic two-slit experiment is that there is a noncausal, but information laden connection amongst the elements of a quantum system. And this connection is not a bit channel or any sort of causal process (which shows once again, incidentally, that we are dealing here with a semantic sense of information). Here, perhaps, we find a new, nontrivial and highly significant sense in which information is truly a fundamental feature of the world (maybe the fundamental feature).
It seems to me possible to use this more robust sense of the fundamental nature of information to mold a theory which takes consciousness to be itself a fundamental feature of the world, where I mean by fundamental something elemental, not dependent upon the satisfaction of any functional description by any physical system, and not subservient to the principle of causal grounding. Chalmers himself makes a gesture towards such a theory in his remarks on information and notes that such a theory is 'not as implausible as it is often thought to be' (p. 217). We might as well be blunt about it: the theory at issue is panpsychism, which is the doctrine that 'all matter, or all nature, is itself psychical, or has a psychical aspect' (this from the OED), and it is indeed thought to be implausible. I offer a defence of it only with great diffidence. The generation problem seems real to me and sufficiently difficult to warrant fairly untrammelled speculation. Several strands of thought, some in defence of and some attacking panpsychism also come together in a curiously satisfying way once we unite the ideas that consciousness is a foundational feature of the world with our new notion of information and its significance. "
- from CONSCIOUSNESS, INFORMATION AND PANPSYCHISM (http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/CONSC_INFO_PANPSY.html)
William Seager
This once fringe concept seems to be being proposed by theorists from the fields of neuroscience through to quantum physics as a solution to the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'. How can consciousness emerge from something quite different - matter - unless matter has properties which can act as building blocks for mental activity? The theory proposes that matter has inherent 'proto-psychic' properties, specifically informational qualities and that subject and object relationships in terms of information are funadamental to the universe.
Here are some more related links:
Conscious objector (http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/science/story/0,12450,884678,00.html)
God Is the Machine (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html)
Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Consciousness (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/)
IMPLICATIONS OF A FUNDAMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS (http://mattersofconsequence.com/cmtu3htm.html)
Quantum Physics/ Biology Abstracts (http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Tucson/4.htm)
Online papers on consciousness, part 3: Science of consciousness (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online3.html#neuroscience)
Is the Conscious Mind Subtly Linked to a Basic Level of the Universe? (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/Pen-Ham/Funda-Mentality/Fundamentality.htm)
pelastration
Jun3-03, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Pelastration:
I couldn't "get there from here"...couldn't connect.
Is your response to Alexander enough for me to know?
This must be better: http://home.sprynet.com/~jowolf/essay.htm
It's on holons and interconnectivity.
Alexander
Jun3-03, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What's YOUR take on consciousness?
Plain and simple. First, I would define it in order to know WHAT is being discussed.
Of course, anyone is welcomed to give any "preliminary" definition of the subject of discussion. Then we can work on "coomon ground" or pick the "most popular" ot "most logical" definition. Only afer EVERYBODY will agree on exactly what is meant by "consciouseness" we can discuss if universe is conscious or not.
Basicly, discussion is meaningfull only if all participants mean the SAME animal. When one person by word, say, "fruit" means only orange and another only apple, they obviousely will disagree on many properties of an object they label as "fruit" . Say, on color, on taste, shape, origin, life cycle, chemical composition, etc.
My definition of consciouseness is as follows. Consciouseness is active state of neurons responsible for speach (including thoughts which are just activity of speach neurons but without engaging motor neurons of throat muscles), or of neurons responsible for hearing, or of neurons responsible for vision.
Active state of vast majority of the rest neurons is what we cal "sub-consciouseness" (information processing is their responsibility, by the way - as in any other animal brain). Inactive state of first group of neurons is what we call "sleep", inactivity of almost all neurons except resonsible for basics (respiration, basic chemical balance, etc) is what we call "unconcsiousness".
akhenaten
Jun3-03, 04:01 PM
Alexander,
First, I agree it is neccessary to agree, at least more or less about what 'consciousness' means in order to have a meaningful discussiona about it.
Second, your 'definition' of consciousness appears to be an unproven explanation of what consciousness is or what causes it. Isn't this the equivalent of starting a discussion on the issue of whether racism is ethically wrong, by defining racism as 'the morally wrong discrimination between people on the basis of race'?
Also, since the brain is a form of computer, we could, in theory replace some or all of it with non organic parts that perform the same functions/ computations, then surely it is the informational state that is important to the mental state, not what the parts are made of.
Iacchus32
Jun3-03, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Alexander
My definition of consciouseness is as follows. Consciouseness is active state of neurons responsible for speach (including thoughts which are just activity of speach neurons but without engaging motor neurons of throat muscles), or of neurons responsible for hearing, or of neurons responsible for vision.
Active state of vast majority of the rest neurons is what we cal "sub-consciouseness" (information processing is their responsibility, by the way - as in any other animal brain). Inactive state of first group of neurons is what we call "sleep", inactivity of almost all neurons except resonsible for basics (respiration, basic chemical balance, etc) is what we call "unconcsiousness". Good Luck! Now all you have to do is try and stay awake and remain conscious! [zz)] [zz)]
Ever consider that there might be an entity or "a soul" that goes along with being conscious?
While I suppose it's nice to know how to put together a car, and yet the main reason we have cars is to serve as transportation.
Alexander
Jun3-03, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Ever consider that there might be an entity or "a soul" that goes along with being conscious?
Yes, of course. The hypothesis of "soul" was discarded long ago due to lack of supporting facts.
Alexander
Jun3-03, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by akhenaten
Second, your 'definition' of consciousness appears to be an unproven explanation of what consciousness is or what causes it.
What do you mean, unproven? This is what I learned in biology class in high school. It is in textbooks (chapter "Central nervous system" - about how brain works).
...Isn't this the equivalent of starting a discussion on the issue of whether racism is ethically wrong, by defining racism as 'the morally wrong discrimination between people on the basis of race'?
Exactly. You clearly see the point - once definition is there, the discussion may no longer be needed (because racizm is immoral by definition of rasizm) - and plenty of disk space can be saved for more meaningfull issues than talking about undefined objects.
akhenaten
Jun3-03, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Alexander
What do you mean, unproven? This is what I learned in biology class in high school. It is in textbooks (chapter "Central nervous system" - about how brain works).
Yes, but if you were that that was 'what consciousness is' then you had a very idiosynchratic and zealous logical potivist of a teacher.
Originally posted by Alexander
Exactly. You clearly see the point - once definition is there, the discussion may no longer be needed (because racizm is immoral by definition of rasizm) - and plenty of disk space can be saved for more meaningfull issues than talking about undefined objects.
The immorality of racism is a value judgement - it would be absurd to try to discover whether it was really immoral by looking it up in a dictionary - that would only tell you how it was regarded. The definition of a word is how it is used, this is not necessarily the same as how it is, in itself.
Iacchus32
Jun3-03, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Alexander
Yes, of course. The hypothesis of "soul" was discarded long ago due to lack of supporting facts. I guess I'm more concerned with the "quality of consciousness," as this is what concerns me "specifically."
And yes I do have an entity, which is my soul, which is the very part of me that "remains conscious."
So what is it about being cognizant (conscious) that allows us to acknowledge the truth of anything? Is it just the neurons in our brain? Or, is there something more to it than that? Like a "greater concsciousness" as a whole?
Wouldn't it be fair to say that consciousness entails the "awareness of reality?" If so, isn't it also conceivable that reality must in some sense entail consciousness? Otherwise, how does anything -- i.e., in terms of its relationship -- "recognize" anything else?
Alexander
Jun3-03, 05:57 PM
You use so many undefined words that I don't understand what exactly you are saying.
akhenaten
Jun3-03, 06:26 PM
Would anyone agree that Nagel's description may have some use as a working definition: that consciousness is what an organism possesses when there is something that it is like to be itself?
Iacchus32
Jun3-03, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Alexander
You use so many undefined words that I don't understand what exactly you are saying. What do you think I invent my own words? If you don't understand a word, trying looking it up in the dictionary. These are all "standard" words that you can find in any dictionary by the way.
Perhaps I can try and be a little more clear with my words, but it's not always easy trying to expain something to somebody who doesn't understand.
Iacchus32
Jun3-03, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by akhenaten
Would anyone agree that Nagel's description may have some use as a working definition: that consciousness is what an organism possesses when there is something that it is like to be itself? Am not familiar with Nagel? And are you saying consciousness is the "recognition factor" that exists between organisms of a like kind?
akhenaten
Jun3-03, 06:46 PM
Let me have a go.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I guess I'm more concerned with the "quality of consciousness," as this is what concerns me "specifically."
And yes I do have an entity, which is my soul, which is the very part of me that "remains conscious."
And this 'soul' is presumably different to your consciousness? The existence of a soul is without evidence.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
So what is it about being cognizant (conscious) that allows us to acknowledge the truth of anything? Is it just the neurons in our brain? Or, is there something more to it than that? Like a "greater concsciousness" as a whole?
The mind is a system which can build sophisticated models of its environment or even invent new ones. Don't know what you mean by "greater concsciousness as a whole".
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Wouldn't it be fair to say that consciousness entails the "awareness of reality?" If so, isn't it also conceivable that reality must in some sense entail consciousness? Otherwise, how does anything -- i.e., in terms of its relationship -- "recognize" anything else?
Why does it have to be a two way relationship. And surely consciousness can be of something other than reality.
akhenaten
Jun3-03, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Am not familiar with Nagel? And are you saying consciousness is the "recognition factor" that exists between organisms of a like kind?
No. According to Nagel, if something is conscious, it is "like something" to be that thing. For example, from my subjective viewpoint, it is "like something" to be me and I imagine it is "like something" to be you - happy, sad, blurred vision, always thinking etc. I imagine there exists a perspective on reality that is you. This is probably the case with any animals too.
Iacchus32
Jun3-03, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by akhenaten
No. According to Nagel, if something is conscious, it is "like something" to be that thing. For example, from my subjective viewpoint, it is "like something" to be me and I imagine it is "like something" to be you - happy, sad, blurred vision, always thinking etc. I imagine there exists a perspective on reality that is you. This is probably the case with any animals too. And yet I "know" for a fact that I exist. Why? Because I'm alive and I am "conscious."
Sorry, gotta go! Will try and get back to this later.
akhenaten
Jun3-03, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet I "know" for a fact that I exist. Why? Because I'm alive and I am "conscious."
How do you know its you? LOL!
All you really know is that some thoughts and sensations exist.
akhenaten
Jun3-03, 07:43 PM
Here's another one on panpsychism:
Panpsychism, the Conscious Brain and Exo-Biological Awareness (http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articles/9803141712.htm)
Alexander
Jun3-03, 07:55 PM
So, any other definition of consciouseness besides mine?
(If there is none, we then can take mine and move on to discuss universe).
akhenaten
Jun3-03, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Alexander
So, any other definition of consciouseness besides mine?
(If there is none, we then can take mine and move on to discuss universe).
Fat chance! See the Nagel definition I posted above.
Iacchus32
Jun4-03, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by akhenaten
Let me have a go.
And this 'soul' is presumably different to your consciousness? The existence of a soul is without evidence.To whom? Who is the one to trust on this matter anyway? If science says it can't discern the matter because it's "too subjective," then obviously you can't trust science. In which case it becomes a piss-poor excuse to accept Science's word for it. So guess who becomes the expert by default then? That's right me, and rightfully so! Because I'm the one who owns the "original equipment." This is how I "know" that I have a soul. Don't let anyone else fool you!
The mind is a system which can build sophisticated models of its environment or even invent new ones. Don't know what you mean by "greater concsciousness as a whole".If as I say, I do have a soul, which is my consciousness, then there must be an even greater consciousness (or, spiritual dimension if you will) that the soul taps into which, if nothing else, is the "collective unconscious" that Jung describes.
Why does it have to be a two way relationship. And surely consciousness can be of something other than reality. Isn't reality just another means by which to describe existence? If so, then shouldn't that entail everything, including that which seems irrational? (whether it is or not).
akhenaten
Jun4-03, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
To whom? Who is the one to trust on this matter anyway? If science says it can't discern the matter because it's "too subjective," then obviously you can't trust science. In which case it becomes a piss-poor excuse to accept Science's word for it. So guess who becomes the expert by default then? That's right me, and rightfully so! Because I'm the one who owns the "original equipment." This is how I "know" that I have a soul. Don't let anyone else fool you!
Subjective experience is very often fallable. What is it about your subjective experience that implies you have a soul? And what is a soul anyway? And how does one tell the difference between it and a mind? I don't mean 'give me your opinion on what the difference is' I just mean, if you had a mind, but no soul, would you experience things differently?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If as I say, I do have a soul, which is my consciousness, then there must be an even greater consciousness (or, spiritual dimension if you will) that the soul taps into which, if nothing else, is the "collective unconscious" that Jung describes.
That is totally illogical - it just doesn't follow. Its the equivalent of saying 'I have an orange, therefore there must be a greater orange that my orange taps into'. Beyond shared culture and shared subconscious traits due to genetic heritage, there is no evidence for Jung's Collective Unconscious in the sense that you mean it.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Isn't reality just another means by which to describe existence? If so, then shouldn't that entail everything, including that which seems irrational? (whether it is or not).
Not sure what you mean.
Iacchus32
Jun4-03, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by akhenaten
Subjective experience is very often fallable. What is it about your subjective experience that implies you have a soul? And what is a soul anyway? And how does one tell the difference between it and a mind? I don't mean 'give me your opinion on what the difference is' I just mean, if you had a mind, but no soul, would you experience things differently?What is it about me that "knows" what it knows? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the acknowledgement of truth is inborn? If not, then how can we acknowledge the truth of anything? Even if it's the truth that science reveals to us? Science is still a by-product of the human endeavor, meaning it's still subject to human interpretation which, by nature is "subjective." Therefore, how do we get around the fact that we're human? Is it possible? Not according to science.
So what could that possibly suggest? ... That the answers has, and always will be, contained within the parameters of being human. Meaning, if we want to "know" the truth, then we must look within (ourselves) in order to find it.
That is totally illogical - it just doesn't follow. Its the equivalent of saying 'I have an orange, therefore there must be a greater orange that my orange taps into'. Beyond shared culture and shared subconscious traits due to genetic heritage, there is no evidence for Jung's Collective Unconscious in the sense that you mean it.Something just doesn't arise out of nothing. Therefore there must be some sort of lineage to it or, "greater family" as a whole. Meaning, you can't just have one human being (or perhaps for a better example, say a cockroach), not without a whole myriad of them. This is what equates to the collective unconscious.
Not sure what you mean. Although something may seem irrational (illogical) or, in the case where something has been totally falsified, it's still a part of the greater reality as a whole (and has to be accepted as such). Therefore to say something is irrational, doesn't really say anything, because the irrational exists, if only for the purpose of augmenting the rational, i.e., you can't have one without the other. Whereas what may mean seem irrational at one point, may become completely rational once understood.
Therefore to understood this, is to understand that one does have the ability to delve into the "subjective realm," and begin the process of sorting things out.
akhenaten
Jun4-03, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is it about me that "knows" what it knows? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the acknowledgement of truth is inborn? If not, then how can we acknowledge the truth of anything?
We can't. We don't have direct access to the truth about anything, we only have appearances.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Even if it's the truth that science reveals to us? Science is still a by-product of the human endeavor, meaning it's still subject to human interpretation which, by nature is "subjective." Therefore, how do we get around the fact that we're human? Is it possible? Not according to science.
Science does not claim to find 'truth', the closest concept in the philosophy od science is verisimilitude,meaning 'having the appearance of truth'.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
So what could that possibly suggest? ... That the answers has, and always will be, contained within the parameters of being human. Meaning, if we want to "know" the truth, then we must look within (ourselves) in order to find it
Subjective experience is clearly fallible, more fallible in fact than science, since science has reliably and repeatably shown appearances to me wrong on many occasions.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Something just doesn't arise out of nothing. Therefore there must be some sort of lineage to it or, "greater family" as a whole. Meaning, you can't just have one human being (or perhaps for a better example, say a cockroach), not without a whole myriad of them. This is what equates to the collective unconscious.
Well, we need to establish, first of all whether we are talking about a 'something' or whether 'conciousness' is just a viewpoint on everything else. What, if anything, consciousness arises out of, is not necessarily Jung's collective unconscious - what did THAT arise out of anyway? Panpsychism proposed that matter or the relationships between its parts has intrinsic 'protopsychic' properties.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Although something may seem irrational (illogical) or, in the case where something has been totally falsified, it's still a part of the greater reality as a whole (and has to be accepted as such). Therefore to say something is irrational, doesn't really say anything, because the irrational exists, if only for the purpose of augmenting the rational, i.e., you can't have one without the other. Whereas what may mean seem irrational at one point, may become completely rational once understood.
Therefore to understood this, is to understand that one does have the ability to delve into the "subjective realm," and begin the process of sorting things out.
If you start thinking like that you have no hope of separating the possible from the impossible. What do you mean the irrational exists? I didn't say that the collective unconscious was impossible - (although it probably is by our current understanding) - I said your argument to demonstrate the need for its existance was irrational. I'm not sure you know what irrational mean.
Iacchus32
Jun4-03, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by akhenaten
We can't. We don't have direct access to the truth about anything, we only have appearances.Am afraid you can only speak for yourself here.
Science does not claim to find 'truth', the closest concept in the philosophy od science is verisimilitude,meaning 'having the appearance of truth'.Oh, then what you're saying is truth is subjective which, if there is no such thing as absolutes (i.e., God), then it must be "totally innate." Hmmm ... either way I guess it means we're going to have to "look within."
Subjective experience is clearly fallible, more fallible in fact than science, since science has reliably and repeatably shown appearances to me wrong on many occasions.This is your "subjective opinion" of course.
Well, we need to establish, first of all whether we are talking about a 'something' or whether 'conciousness' is just a viewpoint on everything else. What, if anything, consciousness arises out of, is not necessarily Jung's collective unconscious - what did THAT arise out of anyway? Panpsychism proposed that matter or the relationships between its parts has intrinsic 'protopsychic' properties.How could we acknowledge anything if it weren't for the fact that we were conscious? And why can't we break it down into what makes sense, rather than go through (what seems like) all these extra mental gymnastics?
If you start thinking like that you have no hope of separating the possible from the impossible. What do you mean the irrational exists? I didn't say that the collective unconscious was impossible - (although it probably is by our current understanding) - I said your argument to demonstrate the need for its existance was irrational. I'm not sure you know what irrational mean.The "irrational" must be considered a part of reality, even if it only exists within our minds (i.e., as abstract). For indeed what may seem irrational at one point (take for example science fiction writing), may very well become rational once properly understood.
akhenaten
Jun4-03, 01:49 PM
This is going nowhere. I'm not prepared to spend a lot of time discussing this with someone who has already made up his mind, does not understand 'irrationality' and naively claims to have 'direct access to reality'.
Iacchus32
Jun4-03, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by akhenaten
This is going nowhere. I'm not prepared to spend a lot of time discussing this with someone who has already made up his mind, does not understand 'irrationality' and naively claims to have 'direct access to reality'. Let's just say I'm more "finely tuned." We probably shouldn't be getting so far into it anyway, not without starting another thread. Of course there's already one very similar, The Philosophical God (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2745) ...
akhenaten
Jun4-03, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Let's just say I'm more "finely tuned." We probably shouldn't be getting so far into it anyway, not without starting another thread. Of course there's already one very similar, The Philosophical God (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2745) ...
Perhaps your powers of self-deception ARE more finely tuned than most. :)
Iacchus32
Jun4-03, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by akhenaten
Perhaps your powers of self-deception ARE more finely tuned than most. :) "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
akhenaten
Jun4-03, 03:45 PM
"Believe the person who is seeking the truth; doubt the one who says he's found it."
Iacchus32
Jun4-03, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by akhenaten
"Believe the person who is seeking the truth; doubt the one who says he's found it." Do you doubt the words of Thomas Jefferson? Once again, I've started a new thread, How do I Know? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764) if you would like to continue with this, then please go there.
M. Gaspar
Jun4-03, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by akhenaten
[B]This is a REALLY long thread, so you'll have to forgive me for not reading it to check this has not already been discussed.
This is the BEST! [8)]
Processing...
Later.
akhenaten
Jun5-03, 06:53 AM
I'm looking forward to this.
Who do we think we are? (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/humannature/article.jsp?id=23955000&sub=What%20is%20human%20nature?)
akhenaten
Jun5-03, 07:04 AM
Don't miss these
four great essays (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/humannature/sectindex.jsp?sub=Free%20will)
M. Gaspar
Jun5-03, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by akhenaten
I'm looking forward to this.
Who do we think we are? (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/humannature/article.jsp?id=23955000&sub=What%20is%20human%20nature?)
Still no time to respond to you yet. Just asking here that when next issue comes, you'll reference it likewise.
Thanks.
Alexander
Jun5-03, 09:36 PM
So, because consciouseness is just an active state of some neurons, then a universe as a whole can't be conscious because it does not have neurons.
Some systems in universe, however, can be conscious (animals, aliens, computers, etc).
akhenaten
Jun5-03, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Alexander
So, because consciouseness is just an active state of some neurons, then a universe as a whole can't be conscious because it does not have neurons.
Are you arguing for or against this idea? Neurons cannot be unique in a fundamental way - anything which can 'compute' in the same way could generate consciousness.
Originally posted by Alexander
Some systems in universe, however, can be conscious (animals, aliens, computers, etc).
Yes.
The whole universe migh even be seen as a giant computer - evolution for example is a sort of giant computation.
Alexander
Jun5-03, 09:48 PM
Well, then Solar system is definitely conscious (because it evolves).
Originally posted by Alexander
Well, then Solar system is definitely conscious (because it evolves).
uhh... what is your reasoning here? what part does conciousness have in the evolution of a system? evolutionary process is a completly random series of event. or--- are you being sarcstic and i am so stupid i didn't see it?
Alexander
Jun5-03, 10:19 PM
No, nothing sarcastic. If to relate consciouseness with evolution then we can call practically any complex enough system to be conscious - because it exibits complex behavior. A Solar system is quite complex multiple interacting system constantly changing (evolving). So does a star, a planet, and practically any multiparticle system (with number of particles beyond a few).
So, definition of consciouseness shall be much more narrow than just evolving or changing complex system.
M. Gaspar
Jun5-03, 10:34 PM
[i]Originally posted by
"The natural interpretation of both the quantum eraser and the simpler, basic two-slit experiment is that there is a noncausal, but information laden connection amongst the elements of a quantum system. And this connection is not a bit channel or any sort of causal process (which shows once again, incidentally, that we are dealing here with a semantic sense of information). Here, perhaps, we find a new, nontrivial and highly significant sense in which information is truly a fundamental feature of the world (maybe the fundamental feature).
It seems to me possible to use this more robust sense of the fundamental nature of information to mold a theory which takes consciousness to be itself a fundamental feature of the world, where I mean by fundamental something elemental, not dependent upon the satisfaction of any functional description by any physical system, and not subservient to the principle of causal grounding. Chalmers himself makes a gesture towards such a theory in his remarks on information and notes that such a theory is 'not as implausible as it is often thought to be' (p. 217). We might as well be blunt about it: the theory at issue is panpsychism, which is the doctrine that 'all matter, or all nature, is itself psychical, or has a psychical aspect' (this from the OED), and it is indeed thought to be implausible. I offer a defence of it only with great diffidence. The generation problem seems real to me and sufficiently difficult to warrant fairly untrammelled speculation. Several strands of thought, some in defence of and some attacking panpsychism also come together in a curiously satisfying way once we unite the ideas that consciousness is a foundational feature of the world with our new notion of information and its significance. "
- from CONSCIOUSNESS, INFORMATION AND PANPSYCHISM (http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/CONSC_INFO_PANPSY.html)
William Seager
This once fringe concept seems to be being proposed by theorists from the fields of neuroscience through to quantum physics as a solution to the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'. How can consciousness emerge from something quite different - matter - unless matter has properties which can act as building blocks for mental activity? The theory proposes that matter has inherent 'proto-psychic' properties, specifically informational qualities and that subject and object relationships in terms of information are funadamental to the universe.
A PORTION of the above is what I've been POSTING since I found the Physics Forum 6 weeks ago: that consciousness is a fundamental "substance" of the Universe...existing in EACH elementary particle -- and, collectively, in large, dynamic, coherent systems...like dogs, cats, cockroaches, humans, planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe ITSELF.
While it's great to get some SUPPORT...it's also a "bummer" realize that I've been "scooped"...as evidenced by the wealth of links you've directed us to. I'll be getting to them soon -- and also answering some of your other posts -- but for now I have a few questions re the above:
1st paragraph: say more about the "quantum eraser" and the "basic two-slit experiment" (about photons???). Also, what is a "bit channel" and what do you think Seager means by "a SEMANTIC sense of information"?
2nd paragraph: what is meant by "the principle of causal grounding"? It is clear that I ALIGN with the statement that "consciousness is a foundational feature of the world..." ...and of the Universe as well.
In fact, what I generally say is "The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts"...and, believe me, my "speculations" have been "trammelled" [g)] ...as Chalmers feared.
I think I will go searching for prior posts I've written, to save me the trouble of re-stating same. Not a ton of time to do so. Likewise your many recommended links. HOWEVER, I will get to each and every one of them... and soon.
On this rare occasion, I agree with Alexander that we need to define our terms, and so am giving due thought to a definition of "consciousness" that I can live with. Will be back with my attempt.
Meanwhile, how does one pronounce "Panpsychism"? With an long-i-sounding "y"...or short. Also, I'd prefer a hyphen, such as: pan-psychism...and may USE one whether it's accepted or not. Also, does the word always have an initial capital letter? Finally, who coined the word...and when?
Questions, question, questions...but I think I've got a few answers , too.
Originally posted by Alexander
No, nothing sarcastic. If to relate consciouseness with evolution then we can call practically any complex enough system to be conscious - because it exibits complex behavior. A Solar system is quite complex multiple interacting system constantly changing (evolving). So does a star, a planet, and practically any multiparticle system (with number of particles beyond a few).
So, definition of consciouseness shall be much more narrow than just evolving or changing complex system.
i still don't get what you were saying. why attribute conciousness to such a complex 'evolving' system? i think i should dig up and repost my reply of page 14(?). anyways, these questions as to how such a system could occur should be thought of with the weak and strong anthropic prinsiple in mind, not a greater consious.
Originally posted by maximus
[B]concious is a byproduct of a series of evolutionary events that took place on earth. why are humans always trying to personify inanimate objects by giving them a concious. B]
that's basically it. i resubmit this because a) it was overlooked before in the midst of a converstation between basically only three people and b) i think it's relevent. i'm still a little shakey on your quy's definition of concious if not this biological process above mentioned, and i wonder how it can even be thought of being applied to an innanimate system like a star.
i need some sleep, i don't think i make a lot of sense. (at least not to myself. am i repeatative here? [zz)] [zz)] [zz)]
akhenaten
Jun6-03, 07:36 AM
There is a difference between computation and consciousness.
M. Gaspar
Jun6-03, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by akhenaten
There is a difference between computation and consciousness.
While processing prior posts with every intention to respond...another question :
Akhenaten "worshipped" the Sun ...not, the "son" ...so why the "crucifix" in your avatar?
Meanwhile, hope you'll answer the questions (above) I have from your first post on this thread.
akhenaten
Jun6-03, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Akhenaten "worshipped" the Sun ...not, the "son" ...so why the "crucifix" in your avatar?
Ever heard the story of the blind men and the elephant? This is actually a picture of Aleister Crowley.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Meanwhile, hope you'll answer the questions (above) I have from your first post on this thread.
I'll get right to it.
akhenaten
Jun6-03, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
A PORTION of the above is what I've been POSTING since I found the Physics Forum 6 weeks ago: that consciousness is a fundamental "substance" of the Universe...existing in EACH elementary particle -- and, collectively, in large, dynamic, coherent systems...like dogs, cats, cockroaches, humans, planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe ITSELF.
While it's great to get some SUPPORT...it's also a "bummer" realize that I've been "scooped"...as evidenced by the wealth of links you've directed us to. I'll be getting to them soon -- and also answering some of your other posts -- but for now I have a few questions re the above:
I noticed some of your earlier posts. Panpsychism is not a new idea, its just that its only recently been taken seriously at an academic/scientific level. I had a similar experience when I read this stuff too, because it was close to, but not identical to, some ideas I already had.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
1st paragraph: say more about the "quantum eraser" and the "basic two-slit experiment" (about photons???). Also, what is a "bit channel" and what do you think Seager means by "a SEMANTIC sense of information"?
I suggest you read the original article (or at least the authors descriptions of these terms) instead of my hacked paraphrasing. A semantic sense of information means a correlation between two systems without the establishment of a 'bit stream' which is what is usually involved with 'information transfer' - an example of two systems where there was information transfer in a semantic sense would be quantum entanglement.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
2nd paragraph: what is meant by "the principle of causal grounding"? It is clear that I ALIGN with the statement that "consciousness is a foundational feature of the world..." ...and of the Universe as well.
I'm just pulling this from the article. You should refer to it yourself:
A pernicious problem of explanatory exclusion7 arises from the aligning of consciousness with functional description. Any functionally described system must be actually instantiated by some assemblage of physical parts, if it is to take any part in the workings of the world. The causal efficacy of the system depends entirely upon the causal efficacy of its physical instantiation. Thus when we say such things as 'the thermostat turned on the furnace' the efficacy of the thermostat is entirely explained by the particular physical instantiation of this thermostat (say by the physical details of its thermocouple, or whatever else lets it serve its function). Perhaps a better example would the power of water to dissolve salt: this is entirely explained by the interactions of individual H20 molecules with the NaCl molecules that constitute salt, and these interactions are in turn entirely explained by the ultimately quantum mechanical properties of hydrogen, oxygen, sodium and chlorine. There is no room for water to have any causal powers, save those grounded in its constituents. The principle of causal grounding states that the causal efficacy of any complex, whether functionally or mereologically described, is entirely dependent upon the causal efficacy of the basic constituents of its physical instantiation.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
In fact, what I generally say is "The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts"...and, believe me, my "speculations" have been "trammelled" [g)] ...as Chalmers feared.
I think I will go searching for prior posts I've written, to save me the trouble of re-stating same. Not a ton of time to do so. Likewise your many recommended links. HOWEVER, I will get to each and every one of them... and soon.
On this rare occasion, I agree with Alexander that we need to define our terms, and so am giving due thought to a definition of "consciousness" that I can live with. Will be back with my attempt.
Alexander seems to be trying to incorporate the explanationn for consciousness into the definition. By accepting that, we will not only be accepting an assumption but the debate will be meaningless. What is it that we are seeking to explain? What about Nagel's definition - that for something to have consciousness means it is 'like something' to be that thing, in other words the thing has (or IMO is) a point of view.
The way I would explain this in terms of panpsychism is that the universe is full of information and informational perspectives, mostly of a fleeting and one-dimensional nature.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Meanwhile, how does one pronounce "Panpsychism"? With an long-i-sounding "y"...or short. Also, I'd prefer a hyphen, such as: pan-psychism...and may USE one whether it's accepted or not. Also, does the word always have an initial capital letter? Finally, who coined the word...and when?
pan'sii'kizm AFAIK
'-psych-' just like 'psyche' or 'psychology'. But as you are American you'll probably want to pronounce it in some wierd way anyway [;)] .
Some have reservations with the term, including myself, because to some it might imply, for example, that bricks think. I've also come across pan-protopsychism - the qualifier helps but it does not seem to be in common use, partly because it is a bit ungainly. Panexperientalism is another:
The word 'panpsychism' is often used to describe Whitehead's position, even though he did not use the word himself. The word can be problematic. For some, 'psyche', which usually pertains to the human mind, suggests that this position would hold that low-grade individuals like bacteria, or even electrons, are conscious. This certainly is not the case and David Ray Griffin suggests that 'pan-experientialism' is a more appropriate term. (Griffin 1988) One should not expect all of the characteristics of mentality we observe at the macro-scale to be evident at the micro-scale, just as we no longer expect the physicality to be the same at both levels. For instance, the atoms in a sponge aren't expected to be 'spongy', themselves. The word 'pan' should also not be misconstrued. Meaning 'all', it can imply that everything has some mentality, which again, is certainly not true. Things like tables, teapots, thermostats and tetraflop computers, are regarded as uncoordinated aggregates of low-grade occasions and have no mental properties in themselves. Whitehead distinguishes them from things like cells and organisms:
--Whitehead's Even More Dangerous Idea, by Peter Farleigh
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Questions, question, questions...but I think I've got a few answers , too.
Let's hear 'em.
More links here:
Panpsychism in the Philosophy of Mind (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online1.html#panpsychism)
Michael F. Dmitriyev
Jun10-03, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
My answer is "yes", because consciousness expects the identical reaction on occurring events and self-improvement. We can observe this in the surrounding us world. Besides, a part of integer (the mankind) can not exceed the integer (the universe). In the any sense.
akhenaten
Jun10-03, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
My answer is "yes", because consciousness expects the identical reaction on occurring events and self-improvement. We can observe this in the surrounding us world.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Besides, a part of integer (the mankind) can not exceed the integer (the universe). In the any sense.
Food for thought...
Greetings !
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
that consciousness is a fundamental "substance" of the Universe...existing in EACH elementary particle -- and, collectively, in large, dynamic, coherent systems...like dogs, cats, cockroaches, humans, planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe ITSELF.
Intresting.
Is that a conclusion or an assumption ?
How do you justify such a conclusion(if that's what it is) ?
Live long and prosper.
M. Gaspar
Jun28-03, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by drag
Is that a conclusion or an assumption ?
It's a proposition.
M. Gaspar
Jun28-03, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
...a part of an integer (mankind) cannot exceed the integer (the Universe).
What might M.F.Dmitriyev mean here...mathematically speaking?
Is he correct?
What might this mean re "consciousness"?
Anyone?
maximus
Jun29-03, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Besides, a part of integer (the mankind) can not exceed the integer (the universe). In the any sense.
i don't think this makes much sence at all. how are we (by being concious and the universe not) be exceeding the universe? and what is exceeding the universe in the first place?
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
It's a proposition.
O.K. Even so, there should be some conclusive part in it, right ?
What is it then ? And even if you just wish to fully start from
this proposition, where do you go ?
Live long and prosper.
M. Gaspar
Jun29-03, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by drag
O.K. Even so, there should be some conclusive part in it, right ?
What is it then ? And even if you just wish to fully start from
this proposition, where do you go ?
Live long and prosper.
Actually, it's where I've been ...if you care to take the time to scroll back over this thread. (I'm sorta getting tired of my own speculations, as of late.)
Nonetheless, if you are of the mind, please scoll back just a couple of posts (end of previous page) to my questions regarding Dmytriev's "integer" statement.
Is he saying that a part of something cannot possess a property that is not a property of the whole ?
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, it's where I've been ...if you care to take the time to scroll back over this thread. (I'm sorta getting tired of my own speculations, as of late.)
Nonetheless, if you are of the mind, please scoll back just a couple of posts (end of previous page) to my questions regarding Dmytriev's "integer" statement.
Is he saying that a part of something cannot possess a property that is not a property of the whole ?
That might be what he's saying, but (of course) I disagree.
You shouldn't be tired of your idea, but it is understandable, as you've had to repeat yourself numerous times now.
Let me (re-)explain the problems that I (and I don't speak for anyone else, these are just my hurdles) have with the idea:
1) If you propose that the entire Universe, as a whole, is conscious, then it's constituents shouldn't be conscious, because they are all parts of the one conscious entity. IOW, all of these parts should work together to make the entire Universe conscious, but none of them would be conscious on their own.
2) If, OTOH, you propose that every physical entity is consicous, then you have the problem of "compounded consciousness". IOW, if every neuron (for example) is conscious, then the logical conclusion is: The bigger the brain, the more conscious the individual.
3) Because of problem number 2, you have the problem of defining the "degrees" of consciousness. What makes one thing "more conscious" than another? Does it mean that they are more intelligent, more aware of their surroundings? If it's "more aware of their surroundings", then there should be some limit to how "aware" you can be, shouldn't there?
M. Gaspar
Jun30-03, 12:56 PM
Mentat:
Processing...
akhenaten
Jun30-03, 01:42 PM
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is he saying that a part of something cannot possess a property that is not a property of the whole ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree too. There can be emergent properties, such as flocking in birds, organisation in ants, absorbancy in sponges, which are present at the macro level, but absent at the level of individual constituents. The problem is that consciousness does not in itself seem to be a physical or even organisational property. Emergentism seems able to explain conciousness from the outside (ie. in behavioural terms) but not from the inside ie. why is it like something to be a conscious entity. Panpsychism seems to fill this explanatory gap.
Check out William Seager's comments on 'Causal Grounding' in the link I posted earlier in the thread. Consciousness seems to lack the causal grounding which is found in all these other emergent phenomena.
Originally posted by Mentat
1) If you propose that the entire Universe, as a whole, is conscious, then it's constituents shouldn't be conscious, because they are all parts of the one conscious entity. IOW, all of these parts should work together to make the entire Universe conscious, but none of them would be conscious on their own.
Why does that have to be the case. If a mind is computation/the product of a computation and given that computations can be performed on a huge range of media, including living conscious humans passing around pieces of paper marked with symbols, why cannot the components of a conscious mind happen to be themselves conscious?
There is also evidence that the human mind may sometimes be separated into concious compartments.
Originally posted by Mentat
2) If, OTOH, you propose that every physical entity is consicous, then you have the problem of "compounded consciousness". IOW, if every neuron (for example) is conscious, then the logical conclusion is: The bigger the brain, the more conscious the individual.
I think 'conscious' is too big a word for such entities - they (or the relationships between them) just need to have an aspect which can be combined into mental constructs. I don't think that anyone is really arguing that neurons or atoms or tables are conscious in themselves.
Originally posted by Mentat
3) Because of problem number 2, you have the problem of defining the "degrees" of consciousness. What makes one thing "more conscious" than another? Does it mean that they are more intelligent, more aware of their surroundings? If it's "more aware of their surroundings", then there should be some limit to how "aware" you can be, shouldn't there?
That degrees of consciousness exist can be verified by simple self-observation as you are falling asleep, waking up, or drunk. Some psychoactive drugs dramatically increase the level of conscious 'awakeness'.
metacristi
Jun30-03, 03:37 PM
M Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
Possible,but all we can say now BASED ON ALL KNOWN OBJECTIVE DATA is that there is no good reason to believe that the universe is a living creature,not even a quantum computer (as Sheldrake,if I am not mistaken,has proposed).Some have speculated that the violation of Bell's inequalities proved by Alain Aspect's experiment of 1982 (and later variants) is a clear proof that all particles in the universe,minds included,are interconnected.Unfortunately this conclusion is too 'strong':we cannot send information with supraluminal speeds using quantum nonlocality and moreover from the fact that some particles are entangled does not follow that all particles in the universe are entangled ...For that we should prove that Bohm's Interpretation of QM (or another nonlocal hidden variables acceptable scientific hypothesis) is superior empirically to all other interpretations (the Copenhagen Interpretation included).Not a very likely probability given that all acceptable interpretations today have at base the same mathematical formalism,only ontologies differ,making exactly the same predictions.But of course there is no reason to believe that we have arguments beyond all reasonable doubt against idealism (this type at least),we must never forget that one of the axioms of science is (still) the apriori rejection of idealism in general...
M. Gaspar
Jun30-03, 04:49 PM
metacristi:
IOW: Give up.
Done.
Tom Mattson
Jul3-03, 05:38 PM
Gaspar, this is in response to your PM to me on 6/29 wherein you asked me to respond to your "last post". I assume that is the one dated 6/29. There is only one self contained part of that post, which is...
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is he saying that a part of something cannot possess a property that is not a property of the whole ?
I don't know what Dimitriyev meant, but I can comment on this in general. This is known as the fallacy of composition. A counterexample of the argument would be something like:
Sodium and chlorine are have the property of being dangerous to humans. True
Therefore, any compound made up of sodium and chlorine is dangerous to humans. False, ordinary table salt is NaCl.
If that's not what you wanted me to comment on, then let me know.
M. Gaspar
Jul4-03, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Tom
I don't know what Dimitriyev meant, but I can comment on this in general. This is known as the fallacy of composition. A counterexample of the argument would be something like:
Sodium and chlorine are have the property of being dangerous to humans. True
Therefore, any compound made up of sodium and chlorine is dangerous to humans. False, ordinary table salt is NaCl.
If that's not what you wanted me to comment on, then let me know.
Yes. That's it. Thank you for your clarity.
Originally posted by akhenaten
Why does that have to be the case. If a mind is computation/the product of a computation and given that computations can be performed on a huge range of media, including living conscious humans passing around pieces of paper marked with symbols, why cannot the components of a conscious mind happen to be themselves conscious?
There is also evidence that the human mind may sometimes be separated into concious compartments.
The Multiple Drafts model, which is discussed in another thread, does away with the idea that the constituents of a conscious brain (or "mind", whichever you prefer) can themselves be conscious, since it is their combined efforts that produce "consciousness". So, either the Universe is a conscious "brain" or it's constituents are all, somehow, conscious, but not both.
I think 'conscious' is too big a word for such entities - they (or the relationships between them) just need to have an aspect which can be combined into mental constructs. I don't think that anyone is really arguing that neurons or atoms or tables are conscious in themselves.
But consciousness itself is a product of the innerworkings of these many parts. "Mental constructs" is misleading also, as phenomenology shouldn't be confused with actual, physical, objects. For example, if you imagine a purple cow, there is no physical object that comes into existence, but this exists only conceptually.
That degrees of consciousness exist can be verified by simple self-observation as you are falling asleep, waking up, or drunk. Some psychoactive drugs dramatically increase the level of conscious 'awakeness'.
While this is true, and there are degrees of consciousness in conscious beings, I was talking about degrees of consciousness in a physical sense. IOW, if a neuron is conscious (and, according to Panpsychism, it must be) then it must be "less conscious" then a collection of them (a brain), otherwise you'd have all of these different "complete" thoughts, battling for the attention of the human, whose skull they inhabit.
M. Gaspar
Jul20-03, 12:14 AM
Thanks for your interest.
M. Gaspar
Originally posted by steppenwolf
some scientists when asked why life exists answer that it is because the universe wanted to 'know' itself. this idea has always fascinated me, it just doesn't make sense but is oddly captivating
The ability to reflect, yes I believe now it's one of the most extinguished forms of intelligence and which makes us so human(ly good). And those who does little self reflection to be less human.
But I'm in the vague idea that existence, both in abstract things like math but also substance, is not standing still. It's expanding.
Michael F. Dmitriyev
Aug19-03, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Tom
Gaspar, this is in response to your PM to me on 6/29 wherein you asked me to respond to your "last post". I assume that is the one dated 6/29. There is only one self contained part of that post, which is...
I don't know what Dimitriyev meant, but I can comment on this in general. This is known as the fallacy of composition. A counterexample of the argument would be something like:
Sodium and chlorine are have the property of being dangerous to humans. True
Therefore, any compound made up of sodium and chlorine is dangerous to humans. False, ordinary table salt is NaCl.
If that's not what you wanted me to comment on, then let me know.
I meant following :
If
POW=PA+PB+PC+PD+.....+PZ....
then
PA+PB+PC+PD+...+PZ....=POW
Here
POW - property of the whole
PA - property A
PB - property B
etc.
Here, it is important to choose the whole correctly.
In your example the whole is chosen not correct.
NaCl is the other material (property) got as a result of chemical reaction of Na and Cl.
If take the Earth as the whole, which property is POE
then
POE=PNa+PCl+PNaCl+....+POC+........
Here POC - property of Consciousness.
You can not deny existence of this phenomena on the Earth.
Therefore at Universe.
heusdens
Aug20-03, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Eyesee
The universe is conscious in that all its constituents are aware of each other. This is proven everytime we roll a bowling ball down a lane, or any other physical interaction you can think of: matter has to be aware of the existence of other matter in order to interact with each other.
Interaction is not the same as consciousness. It is not a matter of decission each time for gravity for example to attrack an object.
It does not require will or purpose. It just happens.
heusdens
Aug20-03, 12:26 PM
The issue of wether or not the Universe is consciouss, has a very simple and straightforward explenation.
Firstly, we assume here that Universe means everything that exists in all time and all space.
So, the first thing we can ask then: what exists outside the universe? Answer: nothing. Of what can the universe then be consciouss? Answer: nothing. How can the universe distinguish between itself and something outside itself? Answer: It can't.
Does the universe exists objectively? No.
Explenation: we can state that something IN the universe exists. We can objectively relate with something in the universe. At the same time, something in the universe, outside of ourselves, can affirm our existence. So there is a mutual objective relation between ourselves, and something outside of ourselves. In that kind of situation, it is possible for a thing to be consciouss. For example: us.
The universe does not even exist objectively, since there is nothing outside of it, that can state it's existence, and the universe can not state the existence of anything outside of it.
It is therefore not possible that the universe is consciouss. But anything IN the universe can be consciouss.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.