Is the universe examining itself?

[RAD4921]

If we examine the universe and we are made up of the universe then the universe is examining itself. It is no doubt "looking" at itself. Do you agree?

 

[arildno]

That's basically Hegel's view: Man is the universe become self-conscious.

 

[selfAdjoint]

John Wheeler has a famous diagram of the universe as a gigantic U, with an eye at the top of one branch looking at the other branch. He rejects the simple interpretation of this that humanity created the Universe and all its past by observing for the last few millenia, but certainly his thought, however nuanced, tends that way.

 

[saltydog]

If we examine the universe and we are made up of the universe then the universe is examining itself. It is no doubt "looking" at itself. Do you agree?

I have difficulty comtemplating what "looking at itself" means since itself is what is doing the looking but it's looking at what is doing the looking. I hate writing awkwards . . .

 

[Justinius]

If we examine the universe and we are made up of the universe then the universe is examining itself. It is no doubt "looking" at itself. Do you agree?

How are we made up of the universe? Is the universe not made up of life, planets, galaxies, etc? I need clarification on this one before I can comment further.

 

[saltydog]

How are we made up of the universe? Is the universe not made up of life, planets, galaxies, etc? I need clarification on this one before I can comment further.

Alright, my favorite example:

I once saw this picture: It was a profile of a man that was made out of little stick-and-ball molecules. The man was looking intently at something in his hand . . . it was another stick-and-ball molecule.

Salty

 

[Microburst]

How are we made up of the universe? Is the universe not made up of life, planets, galaxies, etc? I need clarification on this one before I can comment further.

Assembled out of or rather derived from, resources found in the universe or rather known universe. I think the host is talking about the “fabric” of universe.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

No I don't. I do believe the universe alows for a place for us to dwell, kind of like a matrix. Just because we dwell in the universe doesn't me we ARE the universe... And I am talking about not neurons, bones, or muscles but something deeper, like a consciousness or soul.

 

[Justinius]

No I don't. I do believe the universe alows for a place for us to dwell, kind of like a matrix. Just because we dwell in the universe doesn't me we ARE the universe.

This is exactly what I mean as well. If we say we are the universe we are equivocating ourselves with something that is greater than ourselves.

Each of us has his/her own subjective experiences within our lives. The prefix "Uni" signifies oneness, a certain unity throughout the universe. If each of us has our own subjective experiences, and we are the universe, then there is no more oneness within the universe, thus contradicting the notion of "uni."

 

[Icebreaker]

We are part of the universe. To say there's anything beyond our flesh is mere arrogance on our part.

 

[PIT2]

We are part of the universe. To say there's anything beyond our flesh is mere arrogance on our part.

Now if only we knew what 'the flesh' is.

 

[Microburst]

Noun: 'Universe' Everything that exists anywhere.

Universe as a container implies that there is something outside, thus it can not be a “universe” by today’s definition. Now I am not disagreeing with you, since we simply lack the knowledge in true nature of the universe and its fabric. That’s like asking, what energy is? do you know the true nature of energy? its extreme fundamentality?

Our habit of exploration (science) is few thousand years old, universe on the otherhand is little more then that …
So let’s keep discovering…

 

[arildno]

Let's suppose that the universe is examining itself:
Does it matter?
Or, if it does matter, does it matter that it matters?

Marvin, the paranoid android.

 

[Microburst]

It matters within the frame of reference, we may not be the only explorers, we might not even be the 1st or the last, and again we lack information? Keep exploring…

 

[Icebreaker]

Let's suppose that the universe is examining itself:
Does it matter?
Or, if it does matter, does it matter that it matters?

Marvin, the paranoid android.

Let's suppose that INSERT_SCIENTIFIC_THEORY_HERE.
Does it matter?
Or, if it does matter, does it matter that it matters?

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

We are part of the universe. To say there's anything beyond our flesh is mere arrogance on our part.

-What scientifically disproves the soul?
-Whatever answers you just came up with, and are now (I presume) well known scientific facts, where once ideas just like the idea of a soul.
-So why is this idea false, when the others are true?
-The only thing arrogant is your statement.

Does it matter?
Or, if it does matter, does it matter that it matters?

I would say that it only matters if it gives us the disired conclusion, or solved the problem at hand. Beyond that, math and science are mind games, like chess or logic puzzles.

________________________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

 

[Icebreaker]

-What scientifically disproves the soul?
-Whatever answers you just came up with, and are now (I presume) well known scientific facts, where once ideas just like the idea of a soul.
-So why is this idea false, when the others are true?
-The only thing arrogant is your statement.

Oh, really? Give me one shred of evidence supporting this "soul" of yours.

 

[RAD4921]

Hegal's remark

That's basically Hegel's view: Man is the universe become self-conscious.

Thanks for the input. It seems I see the same as Hegal.

 

[RAD4921]

Self reference

John Wheeler has a famous diagram of the universe as a gigantic U, with an eye at the top of one branch looking at the other branch. He rejects the simple interpretation of this that humanity created the Universe and all its past by observing for the last few millenia, but certainly his thought, however nuanced, tends that way.

I see what it means. I saw a painitng in a book of a pair of hands are painting one another called "Drawing Hands" by M.C. Escher.

 

[RAD4921]

The universe

Assembled out of or rather derived from, resources found in the universe or rather known universe. I think the host is talking about the “fabric” of universe.

No I am talking about the universe. Any part of the universe is included with the term I am referring to. The "fabric of space is included".

 

[RAD4921]

Survival of the fittest.

Let's suppose that the universe is examining itself:
Does it matter?
Or, if it does matter, does it matter that it matters?

Marvin, the paranoid android.

When put into a perspective nothing much matters in this existence except for subjects concerning survival.

 

[Photongod]

Those of you interested in this topic might wish to do a Google search under:
"Einstein+Pantheism" Or "Scientific Pantheism"
There is a lot on the web about this topic

Photongod

 

[RAD4921]

Thanks

Those of you interested in this topic might wish to do a Google search under:
"Einstein+Pantheism" Or "Scientific Pantheism"
There is a lot on the web about this topic

Photongod

I Am aware of Pantheism and I find it very interesting. Thanks for the suggestions. Rad

 

[PIT2]

Oh, really? Give me one shred of evidence supporting this "soul" of yours.

Alright, here's a little shred:

http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

 

[RAD4921]

NDEs and the soul

Alright, here's a little shred:

http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf

I have read a couple of books on NDEs, one I am reading right now called "Lessons From the Light" by Kenneth Ring. It is an interesting subject. I think this is what is getting at the core of the subject of the thread. The fact the universe is looking at itself shows something of the central role consciousness plays in the universe. The universe has a mind because we have a mind. Some would argue that the mind of man is only the universe self conscious in part but even from that perspective one cannot help but be in awe over the mystery of existence.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

Oh, really? Give me one shred of evidence supporting this "soul" of yours.

Can you imagine the purpose for this body of yours (lets say there is no soul) to want to survive? What would it be? Why would a brain, in all it's complexity, desire one thing over another? If there was nothing behind that mesh of brain, no measurements could be made, for what quality would 1 have from 2, or red from white.

Those are just some things you can ponder.

 

[PIT2]

I have read a couple of books on NDEs, one I am reading right now called "Lessons From the Light" by Kenneth Ring. It is an interesting subject. I think this is what is getting at the core of the subject of the thread. The fact the universe is looking at itself shows something of the central role consciousness plays in the universe. The universe has a mind because we have a mind. Some would argue that the mind of man is only the universe self conscious in part but even from that perspective one cannot help but be in awe over the mystery of existence.

What is interesting about NDE's is that it even appears our consciousness can survive our own body. That link i mentioned earlier clearly states that several patients have proven to have consciousness during a flat EEG(clinical death).

I also read this article a few days ago:

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126649

Youve probably heard about the PEAR and Global Consciousness Project before. They are some clear signs that consciousness can influence matter, and not the other way around.

Also, if you enjoy NDE stories, i suggest you go to this site

http://www.iands.org/

Also take a look in the forum. The revelations section is interesting too.

Heres a post of one of the NDErs that i thought was true(its a reply to a report where some doctor claims that the brain creates geometrical images identical to the external world, and that this disproves NDE experiences in some way):

Amazing how those wacky, fun-loving neurons then take the next step and organize themselves into life-like replicas of deceased relatives and friends who tell you to go back the way you came because it isn't yet your time! In Pam Reynolds' case, it must have been "ghost" neurons doing this because she had no brain activity. When I walk down the hallway of my office, I encounter some fairly consistent geometric patterns -- because they are THERE, not because my neurons are amusing themselves. Without having seen the professor's article, it seems to me that this may be an example of two techniques that one often encounters in the skeptical literature:

(1) Because the phenomenon you describe ("X") can't possibly be real but bears a passing resemblance to an established phenomenon ("Y"), it MUST have been Y -- especially since your own testimony isn't scientific evidence and counts for nothing. You and two friends thought you saw a metallic 100-foot disk with glowing orange windows that was directly above your heads and blocked out the night sky, but since this is impossible you were in fact among the many who have failed to recognize a bolide meteor.

(2) "Explaining" the entire phenomenon by focusing on one aspect of it while ignoring the rest. Many bolide meteors are orange and your UFO had orange windows, so we may safely assume that you saw a bolide meteor -- even though it looked to you and your friends like a humming 100-foot disk that hung directly above your heads for five solid minutes.

I don't think anyone would question that geometric patterns are commonly produced by the brain -- all you have to do is close your eyes and watch the patterns unfold. However, it seems to me like a major leap to suggest that this fact explains NDEs.

 

[Chronos]

Self awareness certainly ranks near the top of list for the most incomprehensible pheonomena in the known universe. The apparent nature of the universe suggests such things cannot be destroyed, merely transformed.

 

[loseyourname]

I have a professor (and he obviously isn't the only person to ever think this) that says if we consider mind to be an emergent property of sufficiently complex information-processing machines, then it is entirely possible for higher minds than our own to exist, indeed even for something like the solar system or galaxy to have some strange analog of mind. Of course, it would be a pure experiencing mind, without any of the capacity to act that humans have due to our having a nervous system hooked up to our minds. It's a bit of a twist on the old pantheist view, although I personally feel that, even should such a thing exist, calling a mind that did not create anything and does not have the ability to act "God" is a misrepresentation of what the term usually denotes.

 

[RAD4921]

I posted a similar thread called "the self aware universe" or something close to that, that address the same issue in different words. One can argue varying degrees of self awareness but even the most scientific mind cannot deny that the universe is examining itself with quantum mechanics and cosmology.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

even the most scientific mind cannot deny that the universe is examining itself with quantum mechanics and cosmology.

You seem to think the universe is thinking about itself. As if it was a human, or with human traits. If I where to think in that fashion I could easily say the internet is examining itself by being processed by PCs. I just don't see why you are giving a material object human traits.

_____________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

 

[RAD4921]

The conscious universe

You seem to think the universe is thinking about itself. As if it was a human, or with human traits. If I where to think in that fashion I could easily say the internet is examining itself by being processed by PCs. I just don't see why you are giving a material object human traits.

_____________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

It goes without saying that the universe is "self conscious" and has some level of self awareness. If you have issues with the above statement this is because you are fragmenting reality instead of thinking of it holistically.

 

[Sariaht]

If the universe is conscious it would make choices and wouldn't be controlled by chaos. and it doesn't have to be, but everything started in caos so it's not likely that the whole universe has the same consciousness. If there is no smallest particle, and there is "a universe in every part of the universe", then all parts of the universe must truelly be conscious. Why?

cause in every universe there is a small procentage that is conscious, let's say 0.0000001% but in every part of every universe there is another universe:


0.0000001% of all + 0.0000001% of all parts of the remaining + 0.0000001% of all parts of the remaining + 0.0000001% of all parts of the remaining... ultimately reaches 100% (99.99999...%)

So if there is "a universe in every part of the universe" and all universes or a percentages of all universes has a percentage that is conscious, then the whole universe is conscious.

 

[saltydog]

Those of you interested in this topic might wish to do a Google search under:
"Einstein+Pantheism" Or "Scientific Pantheism"
There is a lot on the web about this topic

Photongod

Well darn. I was starting to like it until I ran across this statement:

"based on the premise that the principal good in human life is to connect with the cosmos, with nature, and with other humans, through knowledge, love and loving action. Everything that furthers that connection, in oneself and in others, is good. Everything that hinders it, is bad".

I think it kinda' conflicts with another statement about nature:

"she purposefully pursues him and wins for her prize, his dominant genes for her offspring".

Another words, "loving action" seems in conflict with basic evolutionary theory. I know it's harsh. Sorry.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

If you have issues with the above statement this is because you are fragmenting reality instead of thinking of it holistically.

The numbers 1, 0, and -1 can be made into all other components of math (or let's say quantity). So, I guess the universe is everything that it embodies. When I think holistically it does make scnence, but that is far too general to come to a conclusion. To think logically we must separate things and find order to them. Otherwise I could say 2 is 3, and 5 is 6 just because they embody the number 1.

_________________________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

 

[RAD4921]

The conscius universe

If the universe is conscious it would make choices and wouldn't be controlled by chaos. and it doesn't have to be, but everything started in caos so it's not likely that the whole universe has the same consciousness. If there is no smallest particle, and there is "a universe in every part of the universe", then all parts of the universe must truelly be conscious. Why?

cause in every universe there is a small procentage that is conscious, let's say 0.0000001% but in every part of every universe there is another universe:


0.0000001% of all + 0.0000001% of all parts of the remaining + 0.0000001% of all parts of the remaining + 0.0000001% of all parts of the remaining... ultimately reaches 100% (99.99999...%)

So if there is "a universe in every part of the universe" and all universes or a percentages of all universes has a percentage that is conscious, then the whole universe is conscious.

The universe is self conscious. We know this for a fact because WE are self conscious. What you are decribing with each part containing the whole is the holographic model of the universe. It may well be a good model for the universe but it does not shadow the fact that the universe is self conscious. Even from the perspective of the universe only being self conscious in part, says a lot about our existence.

 

[Photongod]

Alan Watts put it this way (Not a direct quote)----" I am but one focal point of an unknown many, where the Universe observes itself with awe."

Photongod--

 

[RAD4921]

John Wheeler has a famous diagram of the universe as a gigantic U, with an eye at the top of one branch looking at the other branch. He rejects the simple interpretation of this that humanity created the Universe and all its past by observing for the last few millenia, but certainly his thought, however nuanced, tends that way.

I stumbled across the picture you are describing on page 10 in this document
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html

 

[1+1=only1]

Universe = UniSoul

Alan Watts put it this way (Not a direct quote)----" I am but one focal point of an unknown many, where the Universe observes itself with awe."

I've been mentally studying this for half a century. And only in the last few years all is becoming very clear, and my conclusion parallels the above quote. The basic mental exercise to discover what makes up my soul and why I am who I am, was to mentally play with the question "what happens to my soul if" various circumstances including making exact copies myself (every atom splits into two copies side by side and then moves apart into two beings). Which is the copy and which is me? Each "clone" thinks the other is the copy. Both are me, continuing on with now different life experiences where moments before we were "one". What if a scientist duplicates my entire being, memories and all, at some distant point in time in the future? The soul of that being thought it was me all this time and then got displaced in space and time. Are the souls any different? I think, based on many many of these thought experiments, that we are all of one soul, just different perspectives. When we die, the rest of us see the death of one individual, and continue living. New life springs forth all the time. The "one" soul continues to examine the "one" universe, as a matrix of all these observation points. The question "Why was I so lucky to be me" or "Why was I so unlucky to be me" becomes moot. We all have the same soul. We just can't see any of the other perspectives while viewing only from this one form of existence. Every new life becomes another point of perspective of this same universe, this same soul. The evil doer doesn't get away with anything, as the evil is done to itself. Perfect justice. Good done to another is received by the same "soul" of the universe. God cannot exist separately from the universe... if it did, it would be something less than the whole. The only concept of God that makes sense is that God is everything, therefore God = the Universe = everything. Now here's a good question: Is the Universe fleeting, moment by moment, where none of its past is "recorded", or, is time an illusion, and the universe therefore consists not only of everything in the "here and now", but everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be?

 

[P-a-u-l]

1+1=only1

How do you define "soul"?
What makes you say that we have the same soul? Is it because we mostly think alike, enjoy the same things, etc?

(every atom splits into two copies side by side and then moves apart into two beings). Which is the copy and which is me?

You cannot be two beings at the same time (or ever). You will be the original set of atoms from which the copies parted. You'll have another person in front of you, who looks the same, thinks the same, acts the same, etc as you do. But that person will not be you because you can't see through his eyes, controll his thoughts etc. You will be conscious only of yourself and not a newer entity.

The "one" soul continues to examine the "one" universe, as a matrix of all these observation points.

and

Every new life becomes another point of perspective of this same universe, this same soul.

I can't really figure out what your view is. Are we the Universe or are we the "observers"?

 

[1+1=only1]

I'm here, typing this reply, and I experience this universe from this particular perspective and this particular personality and whatever. I am the observer from within this "body". Some people call it a soul, but I don't believe in the supernatural, so if there is indeed a soul, it is composed of whatever piece of the universe that I am. I know I'm here, I know I'm alive, I (used to) wonder why me? why now? why this body? why this wonderful set of circumstances? so many of my fellow human beings suffer so greatly, why am I who I am and why did the universe wait so long to create me and would I have never known this universe if it weren't for fate that brought my mom and dad together to have sex at the particular instant in time that put the correct sperm in contact with that certain egg that ultimately produced me? And, just what is it that makes up this "soul" of mine (or if you don't like the word "soul", this "self" of mine)? Is it the atoms themselves? Well, I'm adding new atoms every day and getting rid of old ones. If I have a heart transplanted to replace my defective original, there goes some more old wore out atoms and here comes some new. Over time, I could have every atom replaced in my body and brain, and I'll bet as long as I have my memories and brain signals intact, I will still have my old "self". So, is it my thought stream that makes up my "self"? I'm creating new thoughts everyday and forgetting old stuff all the time. Am I losing myself? Am I dying every instant and being reborn every instant with a new soul? Am I the same "soul" or "self" that I was 20 years ago? Is an Alzheimer's sufferer no longer the same "self" or have the same "soul"? If that person lost all memory of past "self" but then a miracle drug restored full function to their brain, except they had complete amnesia and now must start anew, are they the same "self" or have the same "soul" or did they acquire a new one? I think most would say in either case your "identity" or "self" or "soul" remains "you". A complete replacement of every atom in your body with fresh new atoms assembled in the exact fashion as your old body, won't change a thing as far as your "identity" or "self awareness" or "soul" is concerned. And, at the other extreme, pushing the big reset button in your brain and having to learn everything over again from scratch, doesn't change "you" other than you have to start anew. No new "soul" was inserted. It's just a much larger order of change than say, suffering a stroke or head injury where some brain damage occurs. So what is it that makes up the "self", and why is it different behind your set of eyes? What if all the atoms that make you vanished from the universe for a thousandth of a second but came back. Did you notice it? What if they vanished for a hundred years, and then reappeared exactly as you left this universe, only a hundred years later? What happened to your soul while the universe cranked on for that century? It disappeared along with the piece of universe that made it up. But when it came back, is it your original soul or did you die a century ago and some new soul appear that thinks it used to be you? Why would the universe switch souls on you? The "self" within that century later being is no different than the original "self". What if (whatever mad scientist who is performing these experiements) goofed, and made two copies of you when you returned? This is the clone experiment I spoke of before, so he takes half of the original atoms from your body and makes a copy of the other half to make one of your selfs, and the other half of the atoms from your orignal body and a copy of the other half to make the other copy of your selfs. Neither is the original, but both are exact copies, displaced by a a couple of feet and less than a second in time, there are now two of you. Both claim to be the original because there was only a momentary blip when they lost conciousness and regained it. Both recall the same childhood. Both claim their memory to be real life experience, how could both be right? Both are right. Did they each get a brand new "soul" or "self" or whatever, at the moment of duplication? While the true original has "died"? No, I don't think so. I think that this demonstrates that we are all made of the same stuff, we all just have a different perspective, some similar, some way different, and I'm not confining this to humans, I'm saying all beings on this planet and in any other location of this universe, they all, each and every one of them, think they are "it", and (if aware of their own mortality) wonder what becomes of them when they die, and wonder where were they before they were born. The fortunate are glad they aren't the unfortunate, but that's only an illusion. The criminal doesn't care about the victim because they didn't feel the consequences of their actions, but it's only an illusion. If your leg has no feeling, cutting it off still cuts it off. Every life experience in this universe feels like to the individual that it started immediately and when it ends it is no different than the end of countless lives that came before them. No self memory remains, no soul continues, but the matrix of consciousness within the universe continues, it all began as one, it all ends as one. That's the best I can do right now. But one thing I know, it makes more sense than the idea that everyone has a "supernatural" soul that continues on after the body is spent. I always wondered where was the soul before the body was conceived? And why would all these souls of past lives and future lives just keep accumulating? The "hereafter" is getting more crowded by the moment. And what are they doing for fun? Must be pretty boring floating around for eternity! No, we all live our lives, from the dog to the human, to the dinosaur to the frog, to the bird to the dolphin, each with our unique life experience, but together born of this universe and reabsorbed into this universe. If there are no souls, there are none, but if there is one, there is only one, with a matrix of life perspectives. It's like, how can you be one person when you have so many different thoughts? Each of those thoughts are different. Your mind doesn't process one thought at a time. It processes a matrix of information that in total make up your total experience. In some cases a schizophrenic will have more than one ID going on. Separate selves within the same mind. Does that mean more than one "soul" inhabits that body? Or is it one person that completely switches perspective from time to time? Why is that so different than two separate individuals with two separate perspectives? Somehow I think the sum of all life experiences in the universe make up the total observed universe. I don't claim to have finished my "thought" on this subject, that's why it's still open ended. Yeah, I try to stay completely objective and unemotionally attached and strictly scientific, but when I get finished with the logic the mind wants to make a leap with what it knows for the moment. Right now I "feel" like we're all side notes to the total book of the universe. It's being written as we go, future pages are blank, the past is what it was. Or are the future pages already written, just not having been read yet? And, ultimately, why the heck is there anything at all? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to just remain in a constant state of nothingness? Is it possible for a universe (oops, "the" universe) to produce an intelligence so great to finally really understand the big question "WHY?".

 

[P-a-u-l]

This was a very interesting read. Great questions.

But I believe you are mystifying things a bit.

You speak about yourself experiencing the universe from a particular perspective and personality.

The thing is that you are that particular perspective and that particular personality.
I think this is the cause of your mystification - a "self" beyond the personality and the perspective.

why this body? why this wonderful set of circumstances? so many of my fellow human beings suffer so greatly, why am I who I am and why did the universe wait so long to create me and would I have never known this universe if it weren't for fate that brought my mom and dad together to have sex at the particular instant in time that put the correct sperm in contact with that certain egg that ultimately produced me?

In the same manner, you ask why is your transcendental self the personality which you speak of. In other words you are asking "Why am I I. If you were a different I, you would still be an I. So if you're conscious of yourself, you'll always be an I

I believe the correct question to ask is "why am I?"and you yourself have responded to this question: "my mom and dad together to have sex at the particular instant in time that put the correct sperm in contact with that certain egg that ultimately produced me"

And, just what is it that makes up this "soul" of mine (or if you don't like the word "soul", this "self" of mine)? Is it the atoms themselves? Well, I'm adding new atoms every day and getting rid of old ones. If I have a heart transplanted to replace my defective original, there goes some more old wore out atoms and here comes some new. Over time, I could have every atom replaced in my body and brain, and I'll bet as long as I have my memories and brain signals intact, I will still have my old "self".

You are adding and getting rid of atoms that lie in your body; not in your brain (which is you; the body is your "spaceship"). In your brain (there is no way to use another formulation) you only get rid of atoms (dead brain cells), you do not acquire (if we were able to acquire more brain cells as we live, we'd grow smarter and smarter, I presume).
That's a very solid reason why you remain the same throughout your life.
If you replace all your atoms, you'll get a being that's exactly like you, but it is missing one important thing: it's not built out of the same stuff as you are/were (i.e. you can't say that perfect twins are the same exact person...).

So, is it my thought stream that makes up my "self"? I'm creating new thoughts everyday and forgetting old stuff all the time. Am I losing myself? Am I dying every instant and being reborn every instant with a new soul? Am I the same "soul" or "self" that I was 20 years ago? Is an Alzheimer's sufferer no longer the same "self" or have the same "soul"?

There are some basic things about yourself that you will never forget (those things are what you are made of; they compose you): your age, your desires, they way you feel in certain situations, etc.).
Besides this, the brain constantly produces and forgets thoughts.
(i.e. many operating systems can work with the same BIOS; if you've changed the OS, that doesn't mean you've changed the whole computer).
The Alzheimer's sufferer will still be the same, even though he forgets everything, because he'll still act the same, and he still has the same body.
Change the way one acts, change his body, and you have a new person.

A complete replacement of every atom in your body with fresh new atoms assembled in the exact fashion as your old body, won't change a thing as far as your "identity" or "self awareness" or "soul" is concerned.

That's because a new brain configured in the exact way as another will work as the same (will produce the same electrons in the same pattern, etc).

What if all the atoms that make you vanished from the universe for a thousandth of a second but came back. Did you notice it? What if they vanished for a hundred years, and then reappeared exactly as you left this universe, only a hundred years later? What happened to your soul while the universe cranked on for that century? It disappeared along with the piece of universe that made it up.

That depends on where my atoms have vanished. If they vanished out of existence, I believe I couldn't have noticed it. But if they vanished into another, say, reality, then I could have probably noticed it.
But of course, I can find out that I have vanished somewhere, because when I return things will be different.

What if (whatever mad scientist who is performing these experiements) goofed, and made two copies of you when you returned? This is the clone experiment I spoke of before, so he takes half of the original atoms from your body and makes a copy of the other half to make one of your selfs, and the other half of the atoms from your orignal body and a copy of the other half to make the other copy of your selfs. Neither is the original, but both are exact copies, displaced by a a couple of feet and less than a second in time, there are now two of you. Both claim to be the original because there was only a momentary blip when they lost conciousness and regained it. Both recall the same childhood. Both claim their memory to be real life experience, how could both be right? Both are right. Did they each get a brand new "soul" or "self" or whatever, at the moment of duplication? While the true original has "died"? No, I don't think so. I think that this demonstrates that we are all made of the same stuff

It's hard for me to explain, but this matter is fairly simple.
Suppose you are in a crowd of people. Would it be hard for you to notice who is yourself? Is this question even worth asking?
Thus, we have two identical people. One of them is you. How can you not notice who is you? Considering that (lol) you are you.
Also, the original being is the one that has the older atoms; it's not very hard to determine which are the new atoms and which are the old ones.

No self memory remains, no soul continues, but the matrix of consciousness within the universe continues, it all began as one, it all ends as one.

You are unifying living minds into this "matrix of consciousness".
I believe that we both agree with the fact that if you unite two consciousnesses (minds), you'll get one, greater consciousness and not two that are unified [it's like water: add more water and you'll get more water, not two water(s)].
But the problem is that we cannot unite. We are separated by our bodies. I can never know what you think, what you feel, whether you see the same colors as I do or hear the same sounds.
We cannot unify, thus, there's no reason to think about this matrix of consciousness.

 

[1+1=only1]

I think this is the cause of your mystification - a "self" beyond the personality and the perspective.

Not at all. I'm trying to show there is no "self" except that piece of the universe which you embody. I'm trying to show that there is nothing unique about one "self" or the other. Since there is nothing unique then there is only one concept of "self", although several permutations of it. I'm not "it". We are "it". We are every cognitive life form within the universe.

To show how un-unique I am, I'll restate my "thought experiment": I would have the same concept of "self" if all my atoms were exchanged (including every brain atom) for a new set of atoms, all placed into the exact same state and motion as my original set. So, the atoms themselves do not contain my "self". I would have the same "self" if I acquired a false memory somewhere along the way (happens in real life all the time). I would have the same "self" if memories of my past were altered within my brain. How many alterations would it take to make me not my "self"? In effect, this "self" has been in a constant state of change ever since I was conceived. When I was a boy, if some exposure to music caused me to pursue a musical hobby instead of a sports related hobby, and that led to my becoming a rock star, at my current age I would have an entirely different set of memories than I actually have now. Currently, my memories and my character traits are influenced by all the sport type activities I've pursued over the years. Should I have pursued music as my main interest, at this certain point in time years later I would have a totally different set of memories and my character influenced differently, especially if I became a rock star. So, really, that is not so much different than if some "mad scientist" were to brain wash me and subplant memories of music and rock stardom in my brain. If he did that, did he change my "self"? Not any more than if I had made a different life choice years ago. So changing the atoms doesn't change my "self", and changing the thoughts in my brain doesn't change my "self". Why should changing both my body and my thoughts change my "self". Changing both my body and my thoughts to be like, ummm... just like my friend Joe. Who thinks his perception of "self" is "it". What ties us all together is the perception itself. It is the same. That's what makes us all the same. The only thing different is the perspective. Looking out of one eye or the other. Looking out of one life experience or the other. If my mom had a headache the night I was conceived, or used contraception that time, would the universe have never revealed itself to me? Would it have been just as if there were never any universe at all? This nothingness that never becomes anything except more nothingness? I say no. As long as the universe produces at least one conscious being, I live. A billion conscious beings. I live. A trillion conscious beings except for the one that ended up typing these very words right now, I still live. I would have been the next child conceived. I'm every child conceived. I'm every form of life ever conceived and ever will be conceived. I am you as you are me and we are they and they are we and if everyone realized this the golden rule would be so much more very obvious. Our decisions shouldn't be so selfish and instead should be toward the greater good of all life. Instead, the pervasive attitude is that of the selfish person, the selfish family, the selfish community, the selfish country. Even most religion is guided by the fear of "what will become of my selfish soul?". I live, not because the universe produced the exact person that I am at this moment. No, I live, because the universe produced at least one cognitive being, period. The more variety of beings that are produced, the more varied the perspective. The more advanced we become, the closer we may get to understanding the universe. The less selfish we all become, the more potential we have for maximizing our advancement, and therefore, maximizing our understanding.

 

[1+1=only1]

I think, based on many many of these thought experiments, that we are all of one soul, just different perspectives. When we die, the rest of us see the death of one individual, and continue living. New life springs forth all the time. The "one" soul continues to examine the "one" universe, as a matrix of all these observation points.

My original post on 5/11/05, contained the above statement, and I realize now it could be misinterpreted. I'm not suggesting that as one individual dies and new individuals are born, that there is any supernatural continuity in knowledge gained from one life to the next. The only continuity is in what is communicated through natural means, live individual to live individual(s), or dead individual (through writings, recordings, various other media, etc) to live individual(s), in addition to what is built and achieved by various societies through the ages, one improvement upon the other. The point I'm trying to make is there is nothing unique about my soul verses your soul verses the souls of the billions before us. (Replace "soul" with "consciousness of self"... by "soul" I don't mean to imply anything supernatural). It could be imagined to be like reincarnation except you were everything that ever lived, that's currently living, and that will ever live, in the entire universe. This is because there are no individual souls, as multiple souls would imply multiple universes (each soul with it's own version of the universe). There's only one universe, which includes various perspectives of itself (it's self) (both consecutively and simultaneously). There is no information or memory passed on from one life to the next except that which is communicated through natural means, because there is no supernatural. To each of us it seems the universe is only what we ourselves see, hear, smell, taste, touch. But in reality it is what every being, biological or otherwise, wherever located, whenever existed, perceives by whatever senses. If I die tomorrow, I know it is not the "end of it all", because I know my perception of self is not unique, it is a common theme. Also, since we cannot purport to know everything about the natural world, there may be other underlying "natural" connecting mechanisms that bind us, that work more closely with identical twins and family, etc., that we just don't yet understand. I'm talking about live individuals here, not immortal souls. Something that connects across the universe at this same moment in time, not from future to present or present to past. I've had "connected" experiences across miles, and discovered later what I was sensing (or usually dreaming) at the time correlated to something that actually occurred, beyond any possibility of coincidence. Mind isn't closed. Everything I've written subject to change tomorrow.

 

[Boy@n]

Your posts are great 1+1=only1, I am glad I stumbled upon it/you/many of I ;)

I wrote "similar" ideas on Friends of CwG forums, one which might interest you (and interest me how you see it) is here, titled Defining »I AM«, or better, »I AM NOT«:
http://www.friendsofcwg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8932
...with my latest post in that thread "I am not I":
http://www.friendsofcwg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=193488#193488
...if you find these interesting there are several others I'd invite you to read...

And if you have more of your thoughts somewhere on web, or can send em to me via email, I'd be happy to read them...

What I like about this is, that even if it might seem that you, me, or whoever else, are speaking things which might even appear "crazy" to some, well, they are simply too similar that they are just a coincidence... so, how do we come to these similar ideas/feelings? I don't know, but probably it has to something with the "infinite" I ;)

Ohh ok, one more post I'd invite you to, titled "Talents..." (where I also put link to here):
http://www.friendsofcwg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=194409#194409

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"Not at all. I'm trying to show there is no "self" except that piece of the universe which you embody."

Totally!

It seems that the configuration of atoms in a region of space is what defines a human body. Suppose that you've got a fixed volume of empty space and you can arrange any configuration of atoms within the space, and suppose you could write a computer program that can calculate all possible configurations of atoms in all possible ratios of elements and everything (prolly a number larger than the number of elementry particles in the universe raised to that same number (a big number)) then you will find configurations that define your body at all stages of your life, along with everybody elses bodies and all plants, animals, aliens, and whatever else.

Suppose that a configuration of matter moves through space not smoothly, but in tiny pulses (like in QM, ie. wavefunction) then maybe space is the thing that is being configured as a system of matter (program that operates the space) moves in. Suppose Particles can't move, but are bounded by tiny potential wells present at every point in space. They can only induce a change in neighboring wells and send the energy to that well where the process procedes in the same manner. Suppose that these wells have a couple characteristics that can be induced into them, not just one (ie. the one mass of a particle), but also a characteristic of a charge, or a field that can be induced and transferred between wells. Then this well-based space could be a basis of any configuration of dynamical system (a stable, repeating pattern, like a melody) which could produce the emergant behavior of any elementary particle and hence every atom. Referring now to the previous idea about the different configurations of atoms in a space, that now could be generalized simply the configurations of stable systems moving through the well-based space, or simply configurations of space. So a configuration of space, is one of matter.

This thought makes me think of the self as simply a harmonic configuration of space. It also brings the thought that the only reason why space is induced to change is because of the self's will to change it. For example, the space in front of my face is going to change configuration when i move my hand in front of it. Of course, it changes configuration constantly because the Earth is spinning and revolving while the sun is revolving and so on. The configuration of space that is me when I started typing this sentance, was a couple hundred thousand miles (I don't know) in space away from where the configuration of space (me) is now. It's impossible to tell how fast we are moving through space, but the configurations remain the same when viewed in the same referance frame.

going further. suppose that every well has the same energy at all times, and also that every well has more than just the four fundamental forces in particular ratios and an amount of mass, but also an extra set that work on a different induction "channel", and there are any number of "channels" that you can imagine would work, but not infinity (since all channel energy configurations must sum to a finite energy). The energy they all sum to is the same for every well, and so we have a multi-dimentional universe now. In the points of space where there is seemingly a vacuum, and no energy present, it's actually just in a different channel, or spread over a couple other channes other than the one we're in. So in this model, the U is 100% dense with energy at every point when viewing all channels at once, but there are different configurations in each channel. There is no such thing as rest in this U, since every well must have an energy in the form of some ratio of the four forces and mass in one or many of it's channels, so if energy moves into well A from well B, well B's energy ratios (on channel 1 for example) get pushed out into a neighboring well (including well A) on the same channel and well A's energy assumes it's particular ratios (lets say on channel 4 for example) that it had in well A only in well B this time. In sub universe channel 4, they will see a shift from well A to well B, and in sub universe channel 1, they will see a shift from well B to any of it's neighboring wells including A.

This just gave me the idea that forces which move particles can be caused by a movement of energy in a different "channel". This gets very confusing, and honestly I've just put it into words for the first time so it's not the best illustration, but it's a thought that I've been wrestling with.

How does this relate with the universe examining itself? well, maybe the self is not just on one "channel" all the time. What are thoughts? are they glimpses into other sub universes or are they complete constructions of the imagination? what is the imagination? Is it what we call the process of tuning into different "channels" in order to view what's going on in those "channels"? What about dreams? What is it that allows us to chose what channel to tune into, and why do we always pick the one that we're in now? Is there a possibility of making all the particles that make up your body in all their configurations to shift their same configurations to a different channel in the same region of well-space? Is there a way to induce them all to change at the same instant in time, so that you can rest assured that you will be in the same configuration when you switch to the other channel?

On a side step, is this anything like loop-quantum gravity?

 

[1+1=only1]

Thanks, Boy@n

I checked out your links and read all of
"Immortality" by Swami Vivekananda

and really liked your raindrops analogy,
which was very similar in concept as Swami's 100 year old talk
only you said it more concisely and picturesquely...

It's pretty cool - to come up with a concept just basically conversing with one's self (what I basically did) over many many years, testing and retesting theories and arriving at a conclusion - then thinking to myself "I wonder if anyone else has had these same kind of thoughts" - so searching the internet for some key words, I came across this physics forum, where some of the participants touched on some of the concepts, so I posted my thoughts here... Now you've come along and connected and have shown me that not only has one other current being had these thoughts, someone a hundred years ago has, and I'm sure quite a multitude of others that just didn't put it into searchable public words, or have, and I'm just not aware of them.

Thanks for posting and as I have time I'll check out more of the links you've now made me aware of...

 

[1+1=only1]

...Suppose that a configuration of matter moves through space not smoothly, ...
How does this relate with the universe examining itself?
...

That's another favorite mental pastime of mine, trying to figure what makes the universe the way it is, and why the heck does it exist at all...

I'm part way into a couple books, one is string theory which is pretty fascinating... I'll have to say I'm further behind than the times on that stuff, maybe someday I'll have time to sit back and read more, currently more interested in EXPERIENCING the Universe while still young enough to do that to the extent I like to do it!

 

[Sikz]

If I have a siamese twin who slaps me in the face, am I slapping myself in the face?

 

[Gerinski]

I don't think that we make the "real" universe by observing it, but we certainly make the universe "as it appears to us" by observing it.
The "real" universe is probably out there without needing any humans or other conscious entities to exist.
But that "real" universe is surely quite different from what we perceive as our universe.
Quantum mechanics tells us that we shape the universe we observe by the very interactions and observations we have between it and us.
It seems clear that the "real" universe is much more complex and rich than what we can perceive. It's probably something like only being able to see a 3D object from one perspective, missing other possible points of view.