Possibility of a Conscious Universe: Proving Life and Awareness

  • Thread starter Thread starter M. Gaspar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life Universe
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the universe can be considered conscious or alive, with participants debating the definitions of life and consciousness. Some argue that if humans are conscious and part of the universe, then the universe must also possess some form of consciousness. Others contend that consciousness and life should be reserved for living organisms, emphasizing that the universe is a collection of matter that cannot be classified as alive or dead. The conversation also touches on concepts like Quantum Decoherence and the relationship between order and disorder in the universe, suggesting that while the universe exhibits both coherence and chaos, it cannot be deemed conscious without a clear definition of awareness. Ultimately, the debate reflects the complexity of defining consciousness and life in relation to the universe as a whole.
  • #61
Mentat...

Is it a philosophical, religious, spiritual or cosmological discussion that asks whether the Universe is conscious?

We know that there is consciousness "in" the Universe...so I think of it as cosmological.

Unfortunately, when one starts to talk about the Universe, people seem to want to talk about It's "creator"...which doesn't include me because I speculate that the Universe is an Entity ITSELF...not created by a Great Outsider.

If the Universe were conscious AND responsive to all of its parts, would it be a philosophical discussion to ask how that might be "useful"?

And, if there were COHESIVE CHUNKS OF CONSCIOUSNESS that reincarnate as a function of evolution, could be not call it a "spirit" -- for want of a better name. This would make the discussion about the "afterlife of the grub" a SPIRITUAL one...not a "religious" one, which is something else, I think.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #62
Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly, and if one doesn't die, then there can be no period that is "after life". There may be a resurrection (my opinion on that is irrelevant, and that is a Religious issue anyway), but that doesn't mean that the grub needs to be "resurrected" from it's transforming state (within the cocoon). It doesn't need to be resurrected because it's not dead.
Then what do you call the "dead corpse" you leave behind? Like I said, there is an "afterlife" for grubs, and they too leave behind an "empty shell" or husk.

Originally posted by Mentat
This issue is entirely religious, and has no place in the Philosophy Forum. I mean no offense to you at all. It's just that the reason I don't post in the Religion Forum is that I made an agreement with someone that I wouldn't discuss Religious isssues, on the PFs. The person I made the agreement with doesn't mind that sometimes the topics get religious, and I keep resonding, so long as the mentors move it quickly, and I don't respond to it, once it's in the Religion Forum.
If I didn't mention God would it make a difference? Besides, what's the difference between that and what saying I'm below?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but where does this complex energy pattern (or field) which is so attached to our body, what we would call "our essence" (or soul), go when we die? Even something as inanimate as a piece of (dead) wood has to burn before it gives off its essence. But with something which is alive, like us, we expire just like that. Does our consciousness just evaporate into thin air? Of course you could cremate the "dead corpse" any time afterwards, but that would be comparable to burning a piece of dead wood? I mean what gives?

Besides, where do we go when we dream?
I'm saying the same thing here! Ooops, I did mention "soul" now didn't I? Better replace that with "psyche" ... Hmm... if you don't wish for me to say things like "God," then don't evoke me until you finally get me to do so (which, it seems you were trying to do).
 
  • #63
"Soul" is not a four-letter word!

Where does "our essence" go?

Well, if our essense/spirit/soul/whatever were a COHESIVE CHUNCH OF CONSCIOUSNESS, might it not STAY cohesive when the body falls apart?

Meanwhile, can we recognize a distinction between "religion" and "spirituality"?

And are these "off topic" when discussing whether the Universe is conscious?
 
  • #64
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If the Universe were conscious AND responsive to all of its parts, would it be a philosophical discussion to ask how that might be "useful"?
But what does conciousness imply? Does it imply "a will," such as with us humans? If so, then wouldn't it also imply the need for a greater consciousness and a greater will, in order to rule over ours? Or else we would be ruled over by that which is beneath us, in which case I don't think consciousness is possible, do you?

Doesn't consciousness imply a hierchy or arrangement of things, by which everything is ruled from the highest sense to the lowest sense? If not, then guess what, we're no better than grubs, the lowliest creatures on earth!

In which case I should ask again, What do grubs know?
 
  • #65


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Where does "our essence" go?

Well, if our essense/spirit/soul/whatever were a COHESIVE CHUNCH OF CONSCIOUSNESS, might it not STAY cohesive when the body falls apart?
It gives us a reason to wonder now doesn't it?
 
  • #66
Iacchus...

What's with your need to be "ruled"?

Yes, I believe there is the "Primary Will" of the Universe, which is "simply" to have an Experience. Of course, the Experience is rather complex, consisting of the experience of Everything That Is.

As to consciousness, I believe that "collective thought" comprises the "network" through which the Universe perceives, interprets, learns and responds (among other things)...and this could be said to be the Mind of the Universe.
 
  • #67


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is it a philosophical, religious, spiritual or cosmological discussion that asks whether the Universe is conscious?

We know that there is consciousness "in" the Universe...so I think of it as cosmological.

Unfortunately, when one starts to talk about the Universe, people seem to want to talk about It's "creator"...which doesn't include me because I speculate that the Universe is an Entity ITSELF...not created by a Great Outsider.

If the Universe were conscious AND responsive to all of its parts, would it be a philosophical discussion to ask how that might be "useful"?

And, if there were COHESIVE CHUNKS OF CONSCIOUSNESS that reincarnate as a function of evolution, could be not call it a "spirit" -- for want of a better name. This would make the discussion about the "afterlife of the grub" a SPIRITUAL one...not a "religious" one, which is something else, I think.

I didn't say that the discussion of a conscious universe was religious. If I thought so, I wouldn't be participating. It was Iacchus' posts that were religiously inclined (I find it hard to believe, if you say you hadn't noticed).
 
  • #68
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what do you call the "dead corpse" you leave behind? Like I said, there is an "afterlife" for grubs, and they too leave behind an "empty shell" or husk.

I don't leave anything behind. I cease existing at death. Ecclesiastes 9:5 (since you seem to be fond of scripture) - "The living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all". I'm not leaving my carcass behind, I (my conscious self) cease existing, the carcass will eventually also cease existing.

If I didn't mention God would it make a difference? Besides, what's the difference between that and what saying I'm below?

Yes it does make a difference that you mention God. Discussions about gods, Gods, souls, etc belong in the Religion Forum. Lifegazer sneaks by, by making his "God" a non-entity - and using only rationalization (as he sees it) to prove the existence of this being. Aside from that, the Mentors have made it clear that all discussions about God, or Religion belong in the Religion Forum.

I'm saying the same thing here! Ooops, I did mention "soul" now didn't I? Better replace that with "psyche" ... Hmm... if you don't wish for me to say things like "God," then don't evoke me until you finally get me to do so (which, it seems you were trying to do).

I'm not trying to get you to mention God. In fact, I am trying to stop you from doing so. Your philosophy is so based on the existence of a god, that - in getting any deeper into your reasoning - you will inevitably mention god.
 
  • #69
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What's with your need to be "ruled"?
Just as "my consciousness" rules over my environment (either it does it or doesn't), then to the degree that you speak of a greater consciousness (I'm suggesting consciousness "presides" over everything), by which mine is only a "tiny sliver," then it too must be endowed, at the very least, with the same capacity of thought I have (if not way beyond). Consider the slice of bread taken from the overall loaf. Don't the slice and the loaf have the same overall properties? Therefore, it only makes sense that there be a higher consciousness, "or entity," that rules above mine.


Mentat: This is an entirely rational statement. It's still within context of the original thread. I don't see how you (or anyone else) can take offense to it?

Now if I were to blatantly mention God throughout my posts, which I don't, then you might have reason to take issue with me.
 
  • #70
Consider the slice of bread taken from the overall loaf. Don't the slice and the loaf have the same overall properties? Therefore, it only makes sense that there be a higher consciousness, "or entity," that rules above mine.
No, for what you are doing is instead saying that the loaf of bread itself is a manifestation of a still larger chunk of breadiness. The fact that such a relationship exists once is no implication there must be an infinite chain of them...
 
  • #71
But what does conciousness imply? Does it imply "a will," such as with us humans?
No it does not. It implies knowledge, awareness of surroundings, of self. It does not imply an unifying will to action. A spectator is also conscious, but needs not have an universal will and purpose.
 
  • #72
Originally posted by FZ+
No, for what you are doing is instead saying that the loaf of bread itself is a manifestation of a still larger chunk of breadiness. The fact that such a relationship exists once is no implication there must be an infinite chain of them...
No, I'm saying "my consciousness" is a slice of the overall loaf, which is the "greater consciousness" as a whole.

Originally posted by FZ+
No it does not. It implies knowledge, awareness of surroundings, of self. It does not imply an unifying will to action. A spectator is also conscious, but needs not have an universal will and purpose.
Are you saying that as part of your consciousness, you don't have a will that "acts" in accord with what it perceives? Then what the heck are you doing typing at that damn keyboard then? Is it because you wish (which is of the will) to participate? Or, would you rather (which is also of the will) be a spectator?
 
  • #73
I don't leave anything behind. I cease existing at death. Ecclesiastes 9:5 (since you seem to be fond of scripture) - "The living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all". I'm not leaving my carcass behind, I (my conscious self) cease existing, the carcass will eventually also cease existing.
I don't doubt that this could have been the "prevailing view" at the time, but if anything, it highlights the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, which speaks of nothing but "an afterlife."
 
  • #74
No, I'm saying "my consciousness" is a slice of the overall loaf, which is the "greater consciousness" as a whole.
Nope. It means your example is ambiguous. By the mere observation of consciousness does not immediately make sense that a higher consciousness would exist above it.

Are you saying that as part of your consciousness, you don't have a will that "acts" in accord with what it perceives? Then what the heck are you doing typing at that damn keyboard then? Is it because you wish (which is of the will) to participate? Or, would you rather (which is also of the will) be a spectator?
That is not relevant to the discussion. I merely saying that one does not imply the other. Consciousness does not imply a will. Mere knowing does not neccessitate intention. A will is an optional extra, in a way. And yes, there is such a thing as an unwilling spectator.
But I might argue that I believe that all actions are due to our experiences and instincts. The fact I am typing is not because I want to, but because the sum of my memories and experiences compell me to. If my life has been different, I would not be. So my choice is really made for me. If your life has been different, you would not be disagreeing with me...
 
  • #75
Originally posted by FZ+
Nope. It means your example is ambiguous. By the mere observation of consciousness does not immediately make sense that a higher consciousness would exist above it.
Either there's a greater consciousness to the Universe as a whole or there isn't, and that's what we're discussing here.

Originally posted by FZ+
That is not relevant to the discussion. I merely saying that one does not imply the other. Consciousness does not imply a will. Mere knowing does not neccessitate intention. A will is an optional extra, in a way. And yes, there is such a thing as an unwilling spectator.
I will myself to do things all the time and that's a "conscious act."

An unwilling spectator? Do you mean someone "forces you" against your will to spectate? Usually most people spectate out of a "conscious choice" to do so. You still have to put yourself (which is of the will) in the position to where you're going to watch.

Originally posted by FZ+
But I might argue that I believe that all actions are due to our experiences and instincts. The fact I am typing is not because I want to, but because the sum of my memories and experiences compell me to. If my life has been different, I would not be. So my choice is really made for me. If your life has been different, you would not be disagreeing with me...
We're just preprogrammed machines then right?
 
  • #76


Originally posted by Mentat
But fire is a chemical reaction, and it isn't alive.

But there isn't a definition for alive. I know there is one, created by scientists for a standard classification. But there isn't a universal definition, and you can't really classify anything as alive universally.
can the essence of life (life/living things, in the context of standard definitions) be considered alive, using standard, scientific definitions?
 
  • #77
"No man is an island...

...We are part of the main."

Not an exact quote, and I don't have a clue where it's from, however...

...I think the "loaf of bread" analogy is a good one.

If the Universe, through natural processes, gave rise to physicality, might It not, through natural processes, give rise to discrete chunks of cohesive consciousness?

Like the stars (and everything else) which are formed from inherent ingrediants and forces, might not consciousness "accrete" in much the same way?

"Souls" -- for want of a better word -- would be "made of " the same "stuff" from which it has risen...

...and, because it may be made of ENERGY -- not "matter" -- it might tend to hold together after the body falls away.

As to WILL...true, it doesn't HAVE TO BE part of consciousness, I guess, but there would be very little point to BEING conscious if you -- or the Universe -- weren't going to DO something with it!

I think the Universe has WILL because I speculate that INTENTION is what ACTS UPON the randomness that's part of the System of the Universe, causing certain potentialities to manifest instead of others.

The Universe does this on a LARGE scale...and we do it on a small scale...but we DO cause "things" to "happen" via our INTENTIONS...I think. And we do so by "tapping into" the "network" of which we are a part: the collective MIND.
 
  • #78
An unwilling spectator? Do you mean someone "forces you" against your will to spectate? Usually most people spectate out of a "conscious choice" to do so. You still have to put yourself (which is of the will) in the position to where you're going to watch.
What if you are born in that position, and lack the will to leave? You do not need to want to watch...

We're just preprogrammed machines then right?
In a way. Self-programmed is more like it.

Like the stars (and everything else) which are formed from inherent ingrediants and forces, might not consciousness "accrete" in much the same way?
What is consciousness? It seems to me to be an abstract, subjective concept. Can you justifiably apply the laws of physics to the nebulous state of the mind? And how do you identify what is conscious and what is not?
But that's playing the devil's advocate a bit. Personally, I believe consciousness to be a label man place subjectively, in relation to himself. Whatever behaves in a similar way to man is "conscious". Whatever behaves in a different way to man is less "conscious". In this way, everything is conscious to a degree. Really, this is the only definition we apply, we can apply. What makes you believe me to be conscious? Because I look like you, talk like you and most importantly react like you.
And life is similar. The reason why we consider ourselves to be the highest form of life is because this is our only yardstick. The rest we list in terms of complexity and similarity to us. Until we understood fire, nothing stopped us from considering fire a manifestation of life.

As to WILL...true, it doesn't HAVE TO BE part of consciousness, I guess, but there would be very little point to BEING conscious if you -- or the Universe -- weren't going to DO something with it!
Since when did everything have to have a point? In an overview, the majority of people who have lived did nothing with their consciousness, save add a bit of carbon dioxide perhaps. (and that is also done subconciously)

I think the Universe has WILL because I speculate that INTENTION is what ACTS UPON the randomness that's part of the System of the Universe, causing certain potentialities to manifest instead of others.
Hmm... like? Isn't the universe moving towards entropy and disorder, rather than the reverse?
 
  • #79
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?

The universe is growing a brain in its formations of life and conscious beings.

As the universe grows more complex... each conscious being becomes a neuron of the universal brain. There is a propensity for this thin layer of living, conscious beings to communicate with one another across various distances and in various areas of the universe.

This communication is growing in complexity and in frequency.

This could be called the universal consciousness. Where the universe begins to create a neural network within its otherwise inanimate constitution.

This model is based on the book titled "The Global Brain" (author?).

In this book it is easily demonstrated how the evolution of the Earth is a close match to the evolution of the brain... starting with mud... then through many changes and stages to a position where the mud has grown a conscious brain... and comunicates with mud from around the planet.

The brain produces technological advances to facilitate this communication between conscious beings... like telegraph... like fiber optics... television... you get the picture!

This model when extrapolated on to the universal condition tends to show the direction of "inanimate substance" and that it is toward a condition of "Universal Consciousness".
 
  • #80
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?

Statistically of course. Essentially it is QM that first brought up this issue in the form of the wave/particle duality and Indeterminacy and everything in QM is studied statistically. Do photons actually "decide" which hole to go through in the double slit experiment?

In recent years this idea of everything being consciousness or awareness has lost some of its support to the concept of Quantum Decoherence which postulates that the collapse of the wave function is due to environmental noise rather than a conscious observer. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it may hesitate for a few femto seconds to make a noise and become a reality, but no longer than that. At least, that is the implications of modern experiments.

However, this still does not rule out the idea that everything might ultimately be consciousness. All it does is make it a little less likely in the eyes of physicists. Like a lot of explanations for Quantum Weirdness, this one begs for a Theory of Everything to help settle the issue. Even then, it may require centuries before the statistical experimental evidence can pretty much make a stand on the issue.
 
  • #81
brain of universe

Humans are like a brain for the universe, but only slightly because humans are still going to care about themselves and not care about all the parts of the universe. A human displays consciousness because he cares and does things to protect and pleasure every part of himself, his brain cares about every part of his body. But humans won't be a similar brain for the universe because we will only care about the parts of the universe that affect us. If some outer region of the universe is going to break off or die, we won't care, so it seems like the universe may not be conscious in that regard. It, the universe may be more like a tree or plant that lives but doesn't really display consciousness to the extent that a human seems conscious. Although the similiarities of comparing the universe to a human do seem so high that maybe in the future the universe will behave as a conscious entity and not a vegetable-like existence.
The discussions about afterlife seem to get too religion-like so I'm going to skip speculating about that.
 
  • #82
Originally posted by Iacchus32

We're just preprogrammed machines then right?

Right. Even if we have free will, we are still pre-programmed (by genetics) machines (in that we have different parts that work together, to accomplish tasks - that's what a "machine" is).
 
  • #83


Originally posted by MajinVegeta
But there isn't a definition for alive. I know there is one, created by scientists for a standard classification. But there isn't a universal definition, and you can't really classify anything as alive universally.
can the essence of life (life/living things, in the context of standard definitions) be considered alive, using standard, scientific definitions?

Well, I mentioned one of the requirements for being considered (by biologists) to be alive. The universe doesn't create more of itself. It also doesn't take in nourishement/energy from any external source. It doesn't adapt to it's surroundings. It doesn't have an orderly structure. And it isn't composed of cells, which are considered the building blocks of life.

These requirements of living things are not necessarily right, they're just how my Biology book would have you believe. However, the universe (as a whole) doesn't meet any of them.
 
  • #84
Though I agree, I like to say that this analysis is however open to interpretation...

The universe doesn't create more of itself.
One of the present (and unconfirmed) theories, F-theory (based on M theory) proposes that big bangs are caused by branes impacting to create new ones. So universes can kinda reproduce.

It also doesn't take in nourishement/energy from any external source.
Additionally, M-theory proposes that things like gravity can be seeping in from another universe. Whether that is taking in energy is another question. But even then, living things don't eat all the time. The universe can be considered to be a stage between feeding, where it digests matter (mostly hydrogen) for energy.

It doesn't adapt to it's surroundings.
Well... yeah.

It doesn't have an orderly structure.
Galaxies and things like that do present some degree of order. But there is no apparent overall one. But is that really a criteria for life?

And it isn't composed of cells, which are considered the building blocks of life.
Well, individual planets and stars can be considered to be analogies of cells, each producing it's own energy. But the link is tenuous. Is a ball of fusing gas alive is rather similar to the old is fire alive problem.
 
  • #85
I have such a problem with people's speaking of more than one universe. It's like saying that there's everything, and then saying that there's something else, besides.

Otherwise, I can't see anything wrong with the points you bring up in your post. So, I agree, the univese does meet some of the criteria.
 
  • #86
Originally posted by Mentat
Right. Even if we have free will, we are still pre-programmed (by genetics) machines (in that we have different parts that work together, to accomplish tasks - that's what a "machine" is).
Why does my "psyche" find this so abhorrent? ... abhorrence being a sign that I have a will be the way.
 
  • #87
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why does my "psyche" find this so abhorrent? Abhorrence being a sign that I have a will be the way.

You find it abhorrent because you have continued existing in a certain way that predisposes you toward abbhorence of such a concept (by FZ+'s reasoning).

Abhorrence does not indicate will. It indicates that you are predisposed toward disliking something, and that if you had will, it would be severly limited by this predisposition.
 
  • #88
Originally posted by Mentat
Abhorrence does not indicate will. It indicates that you are predisposed toward disliking something, and that if you had will, it would be severly limited by this predisposition.
If I dislike something, "presently," then that requires that I act upon it, and that would be of "the will."
 
  • #89
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If I dislike something, "presently," then that requires that I act upon it, and that would be of "the will."

Disliking something does not require that you act on it. It only allows for it.

Besides, acting on something doesn't require will.
 
  • #90
Originally posted by Mentat
Disliking something does not require that you act on it. It only allows for it.

Besides, acting on something doesn't require will.
In other words you have been so "pre-programmed" by the educational system that you don't believe in "free will." What a despicable thing to do!
 

Similar threads

B What is Consciousness? How does it affect our Physical Universe?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Can the multiverse hypothesis be an explanation for life on Earth?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
B Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
Is it possible to shift between parallel universes?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Probability, observers and the multiverse
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Is the CPT-Symmetric Universe Theory the Key to Solving the Antimatter Mystery?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
I 3 questions about a paper on density fluctuations in the Universe
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Looking to get a better understanding of bubble universe formation
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
752
AI Consciousness?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
I What proof do we have that the universe is homogenous?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K