Possibility of a Conscious Universe: Proving Life and Awareness

[nevagil]

dendrites & axions

Maybe our rocketships and space shuttles and satellites are like the dendrites and axions that connect neurons. Rocketships and satellites may connect and conduct intelligence or actions to other parts of the universe, making the universe a bit like a big brain.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Yes, like a big brain with no central unit (purpose). I wouldn't say that the sattelites and stuff make the universelike a big brain, but rather the Earth like a big, disoriented brain.
What characteristics make something a brain? Does disorientation, or rather, division (like how the Earth is filled with divided perspectives) account to its definition?

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by FZ+
But how then do you classify someone else as conscious?

That is the question... especially in philosophical sense.

In what capacity do I find myself that gives me the authority to determine whether or not someone or something is conscious or not?

As an self-directing opinion or calculation I can see the usefulness of such a determination. But to impose the opinion elsewhere would be precarious and no doubt the wrong thing to do.

I can summon the sentiment that rocks are concsious... they react to conditions (contracting in cold, expanding in heat, disintegrating or "evolving" into sand... offering support for life as soil... becoming life itself... etc...)

These interactions can appear as a form of communication between elements. The heat says "speed up rock electrons" and they do.

Not any different than how the sight of a beautiful woman will set into motion the endocrine system of a hetrosexual male.

The hetrosexual male gives the observer the impression that he is "aware" of the beautiful woman's presence. However... the observer has no understanding of what might be going on in the hetrosexual male's head. The male may not be aware of the woman. He may only be interested in her shoes. That may be all that set his hormones raging.

So, a reaction does not hold the key to determining awareness or consciousness. We see reactions everyday. In the wind, the sun, throughout the universe. Does this imply a universal consciousness?

I don't think so.

Consciousness is a form of communication.

It may only be an observation of a non-conscious state by a conscious state... but that is still a form of communication. In other words there has to be an INTERPRETATION made by the conscious entity and the entity makes a "concsious decision" with regard to its observation.

This "conscious decision" to observe a phenomenon results in an awareness of the phenomenon. This awareness may be correct in its understanding and may not be correct... but it is an awareness of the phenomenon.

This is when there is another conscious decision to investigate further into the details of the phenomenon and expand on the original awareness the observer gained in their first attempt.

This sort of inquiry and exploration creates a fuller understanding and a "higher form of consciousness" about any given phenomenon.

This sort of inquiry and exploration is what supports the growth of the universal brain... with each conscious individual involved in it acting as repositories of information or... neurons... all being a part of the universal neuronal network.

So far, the inhabitants of Earth seem to be sequestered to the cerebellum or brain stem... we may only be preforming autonomic functions with regard to the consciousness of the universe.

The really heady stuff might be going on further beyond us... in the outer "cortex" of this universe. Rarely do the neurons of that area need to communicate with the drone neurons of the brain stem or corpus colosum.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words you have been so "pre-programmed" by the educational system that you don't believe in "free will." What a despicable thing to do!

I never said that I didn't believe in free will. You should know by now, that I don't have to believe something, in order to argue for or against it. Besides, that's not the point. The point is that you really are stuck on the belief that there is free will, and that you are not open to any argument against that belief.

 

[FZ+]

LOL, often I don't! I either assume they are conscious or wait to see if their behavior indicates they are or not. :0)

This is part of my point. While we may say that consciousness, awareness etc are spiritual and immaterial ideas, in reality our internal definition of it, the one that we really use, is based solely on material resemblence and behaviour pattern matching.

Majinvegeta...

If that being is aware of their surroundings and has a concept of time passing.

How can you tell that? How do you know someone is aware of their surroundings, and has a concept of time passing?

carl:

Consciousness is a form of communication.

I don't think that is the right word for what you are talking about. But I'll let it pass...
Let's see, you classify consciousness as a sense of enquiry... kinda. Acknowledgement of external data. But then how can you apply this to the universe? (the subject of this thread) How can the universe enquire, when there is (supposedly) only itself?

 

[wuliheron]

This is part of my point. While we may say that consciousness, awareness etc are spiritual and immaterial ideas, in reality our internal definition of it, the one that we really use, is based solely on material resemblence and behaviour pattern matching.

Not just behavior matching, but intuition and just plain knowledge as well.

. Knowing

Without taking a step outdoors
You know the whole world;
Without taking a peep out the window
You know the color of the sky.
The more you abstract your experiences,
The less you know.
The sage wanders without unhappiness,
Sees without having to look,
Accomplishes without acting.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words you have been so "pre-programmed" by the educational system that you don't believe in "free will." What a despicable thing to do!

Originally posted by Mentat
I never said that I didn't believe in free will. You should know by now, that I don't have to believe something, in order to argue for or against it. Besides, that's not the point. The point is that you really are stuck on the belief that there is free will, and that you are not open to any argument against that belief.

What I believe and what I do with what believe, which is of "my will" (i.e., that which is done voluntarily and hence "freely") are integral, you can't have one without the other. This is what makes us human, as opposed to just machines, which don't have the "conscious ability" to choose.

And sometimes you see, we just have to vote "our conscience" (voting, which is again of "the will"), rather than follow the crowd.

This I think may be the problem with so many of you scientific types, you keep trying to take free will out of the equation, in order to keep your theories nice and neet and tidy. Too bad, it's not going to happen!

My God! ... I hope Big Brother didn't hear that!

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by FZ+


carl:

I don't think that is the right word for what you are talking about. But I'll let it pass...
Let's see, you classify consciousness as a sense of enquiry... kinda. Acknowledgement of external data. But then how can you apply this to the universe? (the subject of this thread) How can the universe enquire, when there is (supposedly) only itself?

The universe has evolved life forms to do the enquiring.

It is analogous to this Earth developing life forms that have evolved to the point where they possesses an enquiring concsiousness. That life form is, for the moment, the human species. The Earth is developing a thin layer of collective consciousness via the life forms it supports.

We could say that the interactions and reactions seen throughout the universe are the sub-concsious of the universe. When this universal sub-concsious produces results like life forms with brains... the universe has developed the universe's concsiousness.

Yet, you suggest there is a spiritual or metaphyscial aspect to all of this and I maintain that it is ALL PHYSICS... ALL THE TIME!

 

[FZ+]

Damn you stole my philosophy. I am just pre-empting any lifegazer style arguments that consciousness cannot be described in spiritual forms...

But anyway... do you then imply that consciousness may simply be introspective? Like we can only enquire within the universe? How do you then know that rocks are not lost in self-contemplation? Seriously?

 

[M. Gaspar]

There are those who speculate...

...that everything -- EVERYTHING -- has at least a "kernal" of consciousness "in" it...including elementary particles, rocks, bugs, turkeys, humans, planets, stars and galaxies.

The more complex the "entity"...the more complex the "consciousness". Hence, the Universe which, by SOME definitions, is Everything That Is -- has the collective consciousness (not a new term, I grant you) of Everything That Is.

I speculate that, at the time of the "Big Bang" -- consciousness of the "former" Universe (actually, It's previous incarnation!) -- anyway, the collective conciousness of the singularity that burst forth, also spewed its consciousness apart.

And, just as matter accretes in the PHYSICAL Universe, consciousness accretes in the non-physical Universe, through forces similar to "gravity" but, of course, unnamed.

All this, by the way, would be a NATURAL PROCESS of the Universe in every of It's incarnations -- that physicality would accrete to provide a "stage" for consciousness to exert its will...and experience its results!

Emotions are a form of "currency" that I'm too tired to describe.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Emotions are a form of "currency" that I'm too tired to describe.

Don't emotions belie "the experience" itself?

 

[nevagil]

Conscious pet rocks, nah

___________________________
Yet, you suggest there is a spiritual or metaphyscial aspect to all of this and I maintain that it is ALL PHYSICS... ALL THE TIME!
_______________________________________________

I really don't see the spiritual, metaphysical, or "physics all the time" beliefs with any confidence at all. The spiritual and metaphysical aspect can't be proved(please don't give me religion quotes).

And the "PHYSICS ALL THE TIME" aspect doesn't hold up for me, although I've only had one logic class and 1yr of physics. How can someone claim it is only physics when we have questions like "what is at the end of the universe?" It can't be answered logically. What is logical about an answer like "oh, it is expanding and contracting, or growing, etc". Because it still begs the question "whats pass the end, or what's at the end of whatever is outside it? Same illogical physics answers to when was the beginning?(It begs the question "what was befor that?")
If the universe is conscious does it know the answers to those question?
By the way, we have observed enough rocks to say they are not conscious. This ain't spiritual geology 101. If we can't agree on that, we will have trouble getting anywhere.
When a class called spiritual botany 101 evolves I think they'll say plants are not conscious also. Boy, would I be embarassed if a tree just falls on me now.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by nevagil
By the way, we have observed enough rocks to say they are not conscious. This ain't spiritual geology 101. If we can't agree on that, we will have trouble getting anywhere.

And yet there is an energy field (or pattern) which defines it as a rock. And let's say you had a dream about a rock? How do you know that what you're dreaming about is not somehow subconsciously connected (through its energy field) to an actual rock? In which case it might be reasonable to "assume" that rocks exist within the realm of the "collective unconscious." And, while they may not be cognizant as rocks, they still remain a part of "consciousness" as a whole.

Which brings up another question. How does one engery field react towards another, when say, two people get together and begin to socialize? If you could observe their energy fields without the physical mass, what would that entail? This is also the "very essence" by the way, which leaves the body almost immediately after death.

 

[M. Gaspar]

What seems to be missing here...

...is the "matter" is actually "bound-up ENERGY".

Thus, the Universe is ALL ENERY ALL THE TIME!

Chances are, CONSCIOUSNESS is ENERGY, TOO. Thus, the Universe may be "simply" ONE BIG VIBRATION! (And the Grand Unified Field might be the electromagnetic spectrum -- to include wavelengths undiscovered, or unmeasurable -- as yet.)

This would account for the "interconnectedness" that some of us like to believe in.

As to "eternity" and "infinity" ... let us just just thank Newton for his "conservation of energy" idea.

Perhaps, as I have speculated, the Universe is an "Eternal Entity of Energy" that's responsive to all of Its parts...enjoying INFINITE INCARNATIONS via the expansion/implosion model.

 

[pelastration]

Correct Gaspar,

the universe and matter is 'bound-up ENERGY'.

That way I said (on that other forum):
"God is often referred as behind the VOID.
Now the void itself can be seen as an unbreakable membrane.
That membrane can be folded by a special universal manifold in such as way that the membrane is still in EVERY subdivision.

It seems a paradox but I show this very simple manifold on my website: http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology. (16 pages)

Once you understand it you will know that we are all tuned ... and that we are linked to the original force (the VOID is in you!).)

So the big game: incarnations, incarnations, ... (restructered nothingness) with level shifts (mass -> energy -> mass, ...) and still interconnected

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by FZ+
Damn you stole my philosophy. I am just pre-empting any lifegazer style arguments that consciousness cannot be described in spiritual forms...

But anyway... do you then imply that consciousness may simply be introspective? Like we can only enquire within the universe? How do you then know that rocks are not lost in self-contemplation? Seriously?

FZ+ dude... as far as I know... we don't know anything.

We are simply able to observe the universe... and observe our collection of observations. We have a long way to go before we know whether rocks, minerals, energy etc... are the culmination or the headwaters of evolution.

I reckon we must first learn the fine art of detachment... to understand better the function and state of all things.

When we can remove our "selves" from the picture... the picture is much more accessable and clearer.

In order to achieve this... detachment... it is required that we understand ourselves to the fullest degree... then let go. Then start on the next project. Like lichen... or algae... or binary systems... or analog intellect... these will be easy to understand after examining the physics of our own condition(s).

A good step in the direction of all of these proposals is in the direction of the nearest pub!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Mentat, I have repeatedly brought up the possibility that this could be a sub universe (as it corresponds with p-branes and the shadow universe), and this all evidently implies that there could be an "outside" of this universe. so...

The word "sub-universe" really has no meaning. If you mean that there is space between the first coherent chunk of matter (the known universe) and the next, and that there are many of these, then I agree that it is possible. However, there cannot be more than one set of "everything".

what surroundings? We can't prove there are surroundings and vice versa. Even if there where surroundings, how are we going to come to the conlusion that the universe is adapting to its suroundings?

I said it wasn't adapting to it's surroundings. It doesn't have surroundings.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

EXCELLENT question!

fz...

How can you tell that? How do you know someone is aware of their surroundings, and has a concept of time passing?

Well, you could of course use special eqipment to test the brain waves. on a lighter note: ask the person what time it is!(that's supposed to be funny..haha)
OR...
the first question we need to answer before answering your most commendable question is: at what point do we experience unconsciousness? the object of this question is to sort out the points of what the premises which our consciousness is based upon.
IOW, defining consciousness. what do you think? (i could really use some ideas here)

 

[nevagil]

unconscious time

Consciousness= awareness

When we sleep we ain't consciousness. That can be argued with word games but unless there is more to it than word games, why argue it?

IOW ? I new here, what's IOW?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
fz...



Well, you could of course use special eqipment to test the brain waves. on a lighter note: ask the person what time it is!(that's supposed to be funny..haha)
OR...
the first question we need to answer before answering your most commendable question is: at what point do we experience unconsciousness? the object of this question is to sort out the points of what the premises which our consciousness is based upon.
IOW, defining consciousness. what do you think? (i could really use some ideas here)

Well, actually you don't ever "experience unconsciousness". If you experience something, you do so consciously.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by nevagil
Consciousness= awareness

When we sleep we ain't consciousness. That can be argued with word games but unless there is more to it than word games, why argue it?

IOW ? I new here, what's IOW?

In Other Words.

 

[FZ+]

Well, you could of course use special eqipment to test the brain waves. on a lighter note: ask the person what time it is!(that's supposed to be funny..haha)

That won't work. If you have the appropiate view, you can easily compare the brain waves of a human with, say, the cpu activity of a computer and say that since computers are unconscious, so if the human. And you can never distinguish a conscious response from a programmed, albeit with great complexity, one.

defining consciousness. what do you think? (i could really use some ideas here)

My feelings are that we use TWO, not one definition of consciousness. One is the philosophical one, denote what we feel SHOULD be true. This is the one you have, based on perception, so on and so forth. But while technically this is the correct definition, in reality, we never employ it.
The second definition we use is based fully on materialism. That is, conscious is that state where something behaves as a human would do. As I, the observer would do. The more different the behaviour, the less conscious it is. Hence we easily construct the ladder of life, and put us on top. Realistically speaking, it is the only open option. And hence this leads to a fundamental materialistic assumption - all humans are conscious, and whatever sounds like a human, is human. Philosophically, it does not have any real grounds if we think of consciousness as a spiritual entity. But that's what we really do, even subconsciously.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Pelastration...

I'm afraid I couldn't get to your website to immerse myself in your speculations, so I can only base a reply to you on the content of your last posting on this thread:

First, I have to tell you that the word "Void" doesn't seem to be applicable to ANYTHING.

According to the dictionary at hand, a "void" : contains no matter; is empty; unoccupied; vacant; devoid; lacking (as in void of understanding); ineffective; useless; having no legal force or validity; null; an empty space; a vacuum; an open space or break in continuity; gap; a feeling or state of emptiness; loneliness; loss. I won't go into the word as a verb.

So, my first question is: is the Universe, in your theory, the void or the membrane?

When you say "God is the behind the void", I have no idea what you mean. Nor do I know what you mean when you say the "the void itself is a membrane".

Apparently, you have a model that satifies you. I invite you to clarify it BRIEFLY here...so that I can shoot it down.

Tho I will say that I am pleased that your model brings you to the conclusions that: (a) the Universe reincarnates; and (b) the there's a little of the "whole" in Everything.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by FZ+

My feelings are that we use TWO, not one definition of consciousness. One is the philosophical one, denote what we feel SHOULD be true. This is the one you have, based on perception, so on and so forth. But while technically this is the correct definition, in reality, we never employ it.
The second definition we use is based fully on materialism. That is, conscious is that state where something behaves as a human would do. As I, the observer would do. The more different the behaviour, the less conscious it is. Hence we easily construct the ladder of life, and put us on top. Realistically speaking, it is the only open option. And hence this leads to a fundamental materialistic assumption - all humans are conscious, and whatever sounds like a human, is human. Philosophically, it does not have any real grounds if we think of consciousness as a spiritual entity. But that's what we really do, even subconsciously.

That definition seems to be one that is prejudicial to other animals. Animals, many of which do not act like most humans are obviously conscious of their surroundings (esp. prairie dogs). My definition of consciousness is "Awareness". Now, we need to contemplate what makes a person aware, that is to say, what makes a personphysically aware so that an external obsever can conclude this person is aware.

Um, can we bring chi into this? I think it may hold some answer...

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, actually you don't ever "experience unconsciousness". If you experience something, you do so consciously.

Very nicely put, Mentat!

BUT, you can remember how you were unconscious. To make it easier for me to say, I should like to point out that I was once unconscious. I remember it, just as I was regaining consciousness. I also remember that I did not have any conscious feelings at all. I agree with you, in what you said, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that you know you were unconscious because you remember, to put it lightly, blacking out.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by nevagil
Consciousness= awareness

When we sleep we ain't consciousness. That can be argued with word games but unless there is more to it than word games, why argue it?

IOW ? I new here, what's IOW?

Uhh...what about word games? I am very confused; what is your point?

Why argue something complicated such as consciousness? (is that what you're rhetorically asking?) Because if one has a thirst for understnding, then one must pursue it without being detered by mere complexity, which in the end is relatively simple (onece you've solved it!).
The question is, basically, how do you know someone is aware? i.e., conscious.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
That definition seems to be one that is prejudicial to other animals. Animals, many of which do not act like most humans are obviously conscious of their surroundings (esp. prairie dogs). My definition of consciousness is "Awareness". Now, we need to contemplate what makes a person aware, that is to say, what makes a personphysically aware so that an external obsever can conclude this person is aware.

Um, can we bring chi into this? I think it may hold some answer...

Precisely. This definition is prejudicial to other animals. Most people are when deciding intelligence. In nature shows, we recurrently compare animals on the basis of human like behaviour. In films, we see such mimicry. Sharks and more different creatures are compared to "killing machines". Would you consider a computer aware, thanks to the existence of the keyboard? There were many philosophies in the middle ages who thought of animals as machines... Only modern biology, asserting animals' relationship to man, have really ended this trend.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Very nicely put, Mentat!

Thank you.

BUT, you can remember how you were unconscious. To make it easier for me to say, I should like to point out that I was once unconscious. I remember it, just as I was regaining consciousness. I also remember that I did not have any conscious feelings at all. I agree with you, in what you said, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that you know you were unconscious because you remember, to put it lightly, blacking out.

I agree. You just can't remember actually being unconscious. You can remember the times right before, and right after, it - but you can never "experience" unconsciousness, and thus have nothing (E.i.N.S. --> ... and thus don't have anything) to remember.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely. This definition is prejudicial to other animals. Most people are when deciding intelligence. In nature shows, we recurrently compare animals on the basis of human like behaviour. In films, we see such mimicry. Sharks and more different creatures are compared to "killing machines". Would you consider a computer aware, thanks to the existence of the keyboard? There were many philosophies in the middle ages who thought of animals as machines... Only modern biology, asserting animals' relationship to man, have really ended this trend.

Okay, I've been so stupid! I just said the "answer" to your question, and didn't consider it at all. Then it just hit me!
Okay, you can observe (that is the key word) an animal and see them act consciously. But then, take viruses or germs for example. Are they conscious? Does just acting conscious mean that something is conscious? How about the meaning of consciousness, aside from the definition?

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Okay, I've been so stupid! I just said the "answer" to your question, and didn't consider it at all. Then it just hit me!
Okay, you can observe (that is the key word) an animal and see them act consciously. But then, take viruses or germs for example. Are they conscious? Does just acting conscious mean that something is conscious? How about the meaning of consciousness, aside from the definition?

1. No. Much of science regards them as barely alive. Perhaps justifiably?
2. Well... In reality yes. Philosophically speaking, there is the possibility of simulations/illusions of consciousness. But if we allow for that realistically, then we get the rather nonsensical notion that no-one is conscious save oneself.
3. I guess you can call my first definition the "meaning", and the second the physical "definition".

 

[M. Gaspar]

If everything - EVERYTHING - has a "seed" of consciousness "in" it (as many, including myself, believe they might), then everything -- muons, mesons, quarks, atoms, rocks, fish, frogs, dogs, stars, quasars -- EVERYTHING has at the very least a sort of "self-awareness". THe more complex the coherent system of "matter" with its attendant consciousness "in" it, the more complex the CONSCIOUSNESS.

Perhaps, consciousness - like "matter" -- accretes via natural forces in the Universe.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If everything - EVERYTHING - has a "seed" of consciousness "in" it (as many, including myself, believe they might), then everything -- muons, mesons, quarks, atoms, rocks, fish, frogs, dogs, stars, quasars -- EVERYTHING has at the very least a sort of "self-awareness". THe more complex the coherent system of "matter" with its attendant consciousness "in" it, the more complex the CONSCIOUSNESS.

Perhaps, consciousness - like "matter" -- accretes via natural forces in the Universe.

As in the example of a molecule of air, which can not give us any evidence of why a property of a hurricane exists, the same holds true for matter. Matter obviously contains within itself the possibility to form structures able of consciousness, but this is not a valid argument for asserting that that property resides in ordinary matter already.

But this of course is dependend on how broad or limited one defines "consciousness". If it is to mean that anything that interact with things outside it, then of course matter is "consciouss", since all known matter is subject to physical forces.
In fact, that is the only wary why we can observe and explore matter in the first place.

Suppose we define on pure theoretical basis a P particle, but define it in such a way that it does not interact with known matter. The "existence" of such P particles is then a purely theoretical things, cause there would not be even in theory a way to observe, detect or explore it.

This is a problem for string cosmology too, by the way. Although this is not because of the theoretical impossibility, but of the practical impossibility to detect separate strings, or small structures of strings.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If everything - EVERYTHING - has a "seed" of consciousness "in" it (as many, including myself, believe they might), then everything -- muons, mesons, quarks, atoms, rocks, fish, frogs, dogs, stars, quasars -- EVERYTHING has at the very least a sort of "self-awareness". THe more complex the coherent system of "matter" with its attendant consciousness "in" it, the more complex the CONSCIOUSNESS.

Perhaps, consciousness - like "matter" -- accretes via natural forces in the Universe.

How is it that innimate objects have "self-awareness"?(rhetorical) Consciousness[awareness] is observable, whereas inanimate objects don't have awareness. What you're saying implies Shintoism, or...I believe it was called "Darianism" or something of the sort(maybe Wuliheron could help me out here). These beliefs say that everything (including inanimate objects) has a spirit. Is this what you are trying to get at?

 

[pelastration]

Reflection

Possible entries to go deeper on consciousness/awareness:

1.There is individual and there is collective Consciousness (CG Jung).

2. What is the possible energetic process?
Think how the first cells started. = joined actions of nucleic acids -> specialization of separte parts caused by extreme surrounding situations braught larger unity.
Condition: inter-communication between the parts, flux of energy (includes information), internal circulation.

3. Consciousness of unity is only possible if there is an alter-ego ( a mirroring system that reflects and confirms a difference).
This is one of the points of Kabbal. Kether (the One) needs the Two (being an emanation of One) as reflexion. The path between these is called the Fool (representing uncontroled energy)

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Interesting.
What are the characteristics of self-awareness? Note that self awareness could be knowing what you're doing and where you are, why and the sort. But, what one should consider what can posess these characteristics. First one should define "alive" from a general persepective, since the definition of "alive" is highly contrevetial, then define what could posess self-awareness.
One important point that could draw the line from natural awareness and artificial awareness is how something comes to the conclusion of its whereabouts. Do you agree?

 

[Mentat]

Here's a question for those of you who think that the universe is conscious: Why would so much matter and energy come together (in the brain), to produce human consciousness, when the scattered chaos of the universal debris can have it's own consciousness, in spite of lack of complexity?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Very good question Mentat. I think that a conscious universe is rather untenable. I believe you may agree?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Very good question Mentat. I think that a conscious universe is rather untenable. I believe you may agree?

Yes I do agree. I think that parts of the universe have consciousness (the living parts), but not all parts, and definitely not it as a whole.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
What are the characteristics of self-awareness? Note that self awareness could be knowing what you're doing and where you are, why and the sort.

Probably the basic condition is a layering system (several tissu's type) related to the available observation system(s). The different parameters will need to work in synergy (thus interconnected) and able to store (fix) several values in a QM-type of context. So evaluation is essential (what is my priority now ... shall I open the box and see if the cat became Mickey Mouse). So store superpositions (possibility to forget = protect the system against overflow ... make it wave) and ability to remember (open directory ... load ... back a particle that activates an intermediar -> since knowledge is transferable without losing the information). This system (probably forgot some layers) gives the observer the system to evaluate his surrounding and thus awareness of his position in the surrounding. The observations system maybe non-intellectual (parasympathetic nerve system or vegetative ns) such as: I NEED FOOD! This can be the type of awareness animals have (if we think they have no self-awareness). Self-awareness (Consciousness) is - I think - related to the possibility to make choices and evaluations which go above the instincts (= evolutionary programmed awareness), and the freedom to say 'NO'. It has to do with the possibility to predict /preview/ calculate steps in the time frame which is not related to the immediate 'Now-Situation'. It also has to do with the ability the connect non-physical values to physical events (Art : a painting of Chagall, letters to poems, music ) and auto-created reality (humor, , absurdity, ... and a transcendental reality). ... that's enough for now ... I can go for hours and hours like this ..;-)

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
First one should define "alive" from a general persepective, since the definition of "alive" is highly contrevetial, then define what could posess self-awareness.

Life will be a similar tissu-type of intertwined layers. But here there will be probably more structurally more layers. But I think that there be less quantum leaps. The struggle from life has eliminated the entities which couldn't decide at the essential moments. Fractal geometry maybe here interesting to examine the DNA level.

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I
One important point that could draw the line from natural awareness and artificial awareness is how something comes to the conclusion of its whereabouts. Do you agree?

Yes. Artificial awareness can probably be reached by creating Quantum numbers, symbols and alphabet which make it possible to add quality to the measure systems. For example that way numbers can have colors representing choices. That way you can counts apples, eggs and oranges and still locate them after all type of calculations. Such approach makes it possible to build real quantum computers. The nice thing is that where in nature we try to find out how QM work from the downside up, in such approach we acts as Gods ourselves and can make the rules from the top.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes I do agree. I think that parts of the universe have consciousness (the living parts), but not all parts, and definitely not it as a whole.

Ah, so in conclusion, the universe itself is not conscious, but some inhabitants are conscious.
Is it more correct(is that grammatically correct? please answer this question... ) to say that the inhabitants of the universe are alive and conscious, taking into consideration artificial intelligence?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

Consciousness may be on a continuum.

A totally chaotic Universe --without any coherent CHUNKS of consciousness as we (and other species, terrestrial or not) "possess" -- would have nothing but "scattered throughts" as opposed to FOCUSED ones.

I speculate that consciousness accretes light "matter" via corresponding forces.

The consciousness of the Universe might be directly proportional to the quantity (and quality?) of the complex and dynamic coherent systems (like atoms, humans, galaxies) operating "within" It.

That's why It might "bother" to create human consciousness.

Howevever, I don't see this (our evolution out of the mud) as "decision" made by the Universe, but rather a NATURAL PRODUCT of the NATURAL FUNCTIONS of Its NATURAL SYSTEMS.

I know we're having this conversation elsewhere (and not getting very far with it), but I'll say it again: the Universe TENDS TOWARD COHERENCY. Thus, elementary particles -- as soon as they could -- formed ATOMS...dynamic coherent systems that, in turn, came together to form elements, and, well, you know the rest.

Here's a quote I read today by Rupert Sheldrake, a crackpot by your standards, but OK by me:

"The big bang theory describes the origin of the universe as a small, undifferentiated, primal unity. The universe then expands and grows, and new forms and structures appear within it. This is more like a developing organism than like a machine...the whole cosmos is in creative evolution. So, if the whole universe is alive, if the universe is like a great organism, then everything within it is best understood as organisms rather than machines."

It is probably impossible to imagine -- let alone detect, measure or prove -- the consciousness of an atom, a star or a galaxy -- but I think the subject is worth CONSIDERING.

Since consciousness does SEEM to "exist" "within" the Universe (as with yours and mine), then I think any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an incomplete theory.

But here's my current inquiry: Does anyone EVER "reverse polarity" on their paradigms (i.e., change their minds on their positions) or are we each, somehow, predisposed to think mechanistically vs. "organically" from birth...or do our ideas "set up" like concrete somewhere along the way?

Are we the ying/yang of philosophy that must BOTH exists to get to the "ultimate truth"?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Heusdens...

"Matter" -- and I usually put the word in quotes to keep forefront the awareness that "matter" is "bound-up ENERGY" -- is made possible by the NATURAL FUNCTION of the Universe to COMBINE It's NATURAL INGREDIENTS (elementary particles) in a variety of ways. Without the "ingredient" of elementary particles (which were, no doubt (ha ha) "contained" in some form -- ENERGY -- in the primal singularity), matter as we know it would not exist. That's why we call them the "building blocks" of matter.

Does this mean that we (or anyone, including the Universe) would "know" specifically what this stuff was going to form?! No.

A molecule of air does not predict a huricane. So what. My point is that the huricane is COMPRISED OF THE MOLECULE OF AIR.

"Nothing comes from nothing" is my contention (and I'm sure we can kick that around, too). Still, based on this contention -- which, by the way, is as "provable" as "Everything comes from Nothing", hence, just as VALID! -- I maintain that consciousness existed in a compressed state, like everything else, in the Primal Singularity.

And, when the Primal Singularity BLEW...consciousness, like Everything Else, fragmented out...then proceded to ACCRETE, like "matter", into dynamic and coherent chunks of consciousness.

Prove it didn't.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Ah, so in conclusion, the universe itself is not conscious, but some inhabitants are conscious.
Is it more correct(is that grammatically correct? please answer this question... ) to say that the inhabitants of the universe are alive and conscious, taking into consideration artificial intelligence?

I don't understand the question (though it is grammatically correct). Yes, some inhabitants (note: not "all inhabitants") of the universe are conscious.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Consciousness may be on a continuum.

A totally chaotic Universe --without any coherent CHUNKS of consciousness as we (and other species, terrestrial or not) "possess" -- would have nothing but "scattered throughts" as opposed to FOCUSED ones.

I speculate that consciousness accretes light "matter" via corresponding forces.

I don't understand the last (quoted) sentence. However, as far as the idea of having "scattered thoughts", because of the matters' being scattered, I disagree. Unless all pieces of matter are thoughts (in which case my brain should get significantly bigger, every time I think), thoughts cannot be scattered throughout the universe, as you imply.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

What I'm saying is that consciousness -- like "matter" -- in order to function as something "useful", needs to "come together" into dynamic, coherent systems (like atoms, which clump together into even more complex dynamic, coherent systems, which, again, do the same).

If the Universe did not have this propensity (natural forces and ingredients) to bring its diffuse substances together, the Universe would be a pointless, structureless soup.

Likewise with consciousness: If my speculation is correct and there are quanta of consciousness which were diffused at the moment after the Big Bang, then it would be through natural FORCES THAT IMPACT CONSCIOUSNESS (corresponding to gravity) that these quanta would come together to form coherent systems of thought.

Another important point is this: that consciousness -- yours and mine -- are NOT confined to our brains, but, in fact, are part of a larger dynamic, coherent system that includes, well, probably EVERYTHING ELSE!

By the way, I'm not satisfied with the word "useful" above...but I can't seem to come up with right word now. Maybe YOU can suggest another.

Meanwhile, Mentat, why would you say so DEFINITIVELY to MajinVegeta that not all inhabitants of the Universe are conscious? You don't know that any more than I know that they are.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Consciousness may be on a continuum.

A totally chaotic Universe --without any coherent CHUNKS of consciousness as we (and other species, terrestrial or not) "possess" -- would have nothing but "scattered throughts" as opposed to FOCUSED ones.

When you say "scattered thoughts", do you mean subconscious thoughts? does "focused" refer to conscious thoughts?

I speculate that consciousness accretes light "matter" via corresponding forces.

Well, they are related (in the sense that there are hypothetical(?) particles called biophotons that are emitted...)

The consciousness of the Universe might be directly proportional to the quantity (and quality?) of the complex and dynamic coherent systems (like atoms, humans, galaxies) operating "within" It.

The universe is not conscious. Some inhabitants are. The universe is probably inanimate. What makes it seem like an organism? I believe this calls for an analysis of the definition of life itself. Even if we reach a conclusion, the conclusion may only be the criteria used to identify earthly life.

That's why It might "bother" to create human consciousness.

To create human consciousness in an android?

Howevever, I don't see this (our evolution out of the mud) as "decision" made by the Universe, but rather a NATURAL PRODUCT of the NATURAL FUNCTIONS of Its NATURAL SYSTEMS.

what do you mean? The universe is conscious because of its inhabitant
particles and stuff?

I know we're having this conversation elsewhere (and not getting very far with it), but I'll say it again: the Universe TENDS TOWARD COHERENCY. Thus, elementary particles -- as soon as they could -- formed ATOMS...dynamic coherent systems that, in turn, came together to form elements, and, well, you know the rest.

Oh, I see what you're saying! (an ingenious postulate!) That's an excellent idea! Maybe the universe could be an early organism, in yet another universe! cool! but its really out there...

Here's a quote I read today by Rupert Sheldrake, a crackpot by your standards, but OK by me:

"The big bang theory describes the origin of the universe as a small, undifferentiated, primal unity. The universe then expands and grows, and new forms and structures appear within it. This is more like a developing organism than like a machine...the whole cosmos is in creative evolution. So, if the whole universe is alive, if the universe is like a great organism, then everything within it is best understood as organisms rather than machines."

Although I applaud the whole idea, it is utterly unsubstantiated. As I said before, defining life universally (i.e., an absolute definition of life) calls for all the possible ways life can exist. One definition of life that applies to every single living thing is hereditary material. If something has hereditary material, it could very well be alive. How do you define life?

Are we the ying/yang of philosophy that must BOTH exists to get to the "ultimate truth"?

That implies we are the only living things in the universe. Although there is no evidence of extraterrestrials, the universe is enormous. The universe is to us, as the atom is to a quark. There could be aliens out there, somewhere (for all we know, they could exist in one of the many infinite parallel universes, where genetic mutations caused the humans to turn into aliens! ).

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Meanwhile, Mentat, why would you say so DEFINITIVELY to MajinVegeta that not all inhabitants of the Universe are conscious? You don't know that any more than I know that they are. [/B]

I believe its because its true. On Earth (which is in the universe), there are subconscious beings. He can be sure of that since its already proven, and this could mean that there are subconscious beings out there too. Can something unconscious, unsubconscious be considered alive?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What I'm saying is that consciousness -- like "matter" -- in order to function as something "useful", needs to "come together" into dynamic, coherent systems (like atoms, which clump together into even more complex dynamic, coherent systems, which, again, do the same).

If the Universe did not have this propensity (natural forces and ingredients) to bring its diffuse substances together, the Universe would be a pointless, structureless soup.

Likewise with consciousness: If my speculation is correct and there are quanta of consciousness which were diffused at the moment after the Big Bang, then it would be through natural FORCES THAT IMPACT CONSCIOUSNESS (corresponding to gravity) that these quanta would come together to form coherent systems of thought.

Another important point is this: that consciousness -- yours and mine -- are NOT confined to our brains, but, in fact, are part of a larger dynamic, coherent system that includes, well, probably EVERYTHING ELSE!

By the way, I'm not satisfied with the word "useful" above...but I can't seem to come up with right word now. Maybe YOU can suggest another.

Meanwhile, Mentat, why would you say so DEFINITIVELY to MajinVegeta that not all inhabitants of the Universe are conscious? You don't know that any more than I know that they are.

If consciousness clumps together, as you imply. Then why are grizzly bears and blue whales less conscious/intelligent than I am?

Actually, I do know that. I have presented my reasoning.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I believe its because its true. On Earth (which is in the universe), there are subconscious beings. He can be sure of that since its already proven, and this could mean that there are subconscious beings out there too. Can something unconscious, unsubconscious be considered alive?

It can be considered alive (just take a rock for example), but obviously not conscious. And the thread is about a "conscious universe".

 

[M. Gaspar]

Where to begin...?

Mentat...re last post to MajinVegeta: that rocks may have "rock consciousness" is part and parcel of the discussion of whether the Universe Itself is conscious.

Mentat..(God: I wish I could lift quotes like the rest of you. Can't find how on faq.)...anyhoo...in your "grizzly bear" response to me:

Let's say that an evolving system of "accreting quanta of consciousness" "found a home" a long time ago in an evolving system of matter, like, say, and early fish.

First, I need you to envision this "evolving system of accreting quanta of consciousness" as "looking like" a diagram of the orbit of an electron. This means, a circle with a glob on one place on it. The glob is the consciousness of the fish. The rest of the circle is the EXTENDED consciousness of the fish.

Within the fish brain, there is only so much capacity to process stimuli, remember, learn, etc...thereby a fish is only able to contribute to a limited degree to the evolution of its own consciousness. Nonetheless, it probably learns and remembers a few things and, in doing so, its consciousness evolves by that much.

Thus, the glob AND the circle it is on (remember the DIAGRAM...not a real object) -- or, in other words, the fish consciousness and its extended consciousness -- evolves a bit by the time its "host" dies.

Bear with me, Mentat...it gets grizzly...

Now, this dynamic, coherent system (the glob and its circle) has accreted more quanta of consciousness and now "goes shopping" for another host. (Actually, I speculate that natural forces of affinity attract a system of consciousness into its next host..for the function of, hopefully, accreting more consciousness...i.e., evolving.)

Be that as it may (or may not): eons pass. the glob has long since graduated from fishdom, progressing upward through the "consciousness food chain" to the grizzly bear! It's still a glob, only more complex, processing info in a bear-like fashion, and proceeding to evolve.

However, the physical system of the bear brain does not allow for the complexity of thought that say, you or I, may enjoy and employ. When the bear dies, its consciousness (glob and circle) will seek another "fit".

Our consciousness has evolved from monkey consciousness. Size per se is not a factor. Processing capacity is. Now, I have no idea what the consciousness of a whale is like (they may be processing/accreting a lot more than we think) but if indeed they are "less conscious than we are" its because of the complexity thing.

I am happy to have found this Forum because, apparently, I am COMPLETELY UNABLE to COMMUNICATE my own SPECULATIONS!
Thus, I welcome minds like yours and Heusdens that call me to task.

Please do so again at your earliest convenience.