Is the universe conscious and alive?

[maximus]

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 completely random series of event. or--- are you being sarcstic and i am so stupid i didn't see it?

 

[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.

 

[M. Gaspar]

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 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" ...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.

 

[maximus]

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.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by maximus
conscious 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 relevant. I'm still a little shakey on your quy's definition of conscious 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]

There is a difference between computation and consciousness.

 

[M. Gaspar]

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]

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]

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 let's 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" ...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 weird 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:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online1.html#panpsychism

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

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]

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...

 

[drag]

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]

Originally posted by drag
Is that a conclusion or an assumption ?

It's a proposition.

 

[M. Gaspar]

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]

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 sense at all. how are we (by being conscious and the universe not) be exceeding the universe? and what is exceeding the universe in the first place?

 

[drag]

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]

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 sort of 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 possesses a property that is not a property of the whole ?

 

[Mentat]

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 sort of 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 possesses 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]

Mentat:

Processing...

 

[akhenaten]

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is he saying that a part of something cannot possesses 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 conscious 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]

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]

metacristi:

IOW: Give up.



Done.

 

[quantumdude]

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 possesses 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[/color]
Therefore, any compound made up of sodium and chlorine is dangerous to humans. False[/color], ordinary table salt is NaCl.

If that's not what you wanted me to comment on, then let me know.

 

[M. Gaspar]

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[/color]
Therefore, any compound made up of sodium and chlorine is dangerous to humans. False[/color], 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.

 

[Mentat]

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 conscious 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]

Here it is, hypnogogue...

Thanks for your interest.

M. Gaspar

 

[pace]

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]

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[/color]
Therefore, any compound made up of sodium and chlorine is dangerous to humans. False[/color], 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]

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]

Consciouss Universe?

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.