Possibility of a Conscious Universe: Proving Life and Awareness

[M. Gaspar]

Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?

 

[heusdens]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[kyleb]

oh you i wasn't even thinking of the physics side of it as; good point Zero.

 

[heusdens]

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]

I have the will to live! ... Yes, but where did that will come from? ... Out of non-existence?

 

[Kerrie]

matter is like a television, and the energy of life is the electricity that turns it on...

 

[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

 

[wuliheron]

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]

Am I Decoherent?

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]

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]

What you are referring to is called "synergy". Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possesses 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 separate 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]

Wuli wuli...

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]

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 tendency of orderly systems to become more disordered.

 

[M. Gaspar]

"More porridge please...?"

And more on "environmental noise"?

 

[wuliheron]

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)

 

[Mentat]

I'm glad I got here...

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]

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]

Mentat...

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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 receiving any "input", anyway)) cannot be conscious. Same goes for an elementary particle (except for the part about not receiving 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 perceived "order", is just further proof of this - since perceived "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]

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]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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]

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]

Duh to you, too!

And what makes you suppose that matter and energy aren't "working together"? I am astounded.

 

[Iacchus32]

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]

Deride on...

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]

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]

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]

What do grubs know?

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]

Don't feel so bad...

...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]

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!

 

[Mentat]

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]

Mentat...

Or maybe it IS.

 

[Iacchus32]

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]

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]

IACCHUS

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]

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]

Yes...

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).

 

[Mentat]

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]

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!

 

[Mentat]

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]

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]

And who's to say, Iacchus...

...that it's not the same for the UNIVERSE...a series of INFINITE INCARNATIONS from "Big Bang" to "Big Crunch" to next "Big Bang". [?] [?] [?] [?] [?]

 

[BoulderHead]

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]

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". [?] [?] [?] [?] [?]

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]

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?