Possibility of a Conscious Universe: Proving Life and Awareness

[M. Gaspar]

MajinVegeta...

No, I do not mean that "scattered thoughts" are unconscious thoughts and "focused thoughts" are conscious thoughts.

Actually, I was being FIGURATIVE! So let me explain it this way...

Let's say that, in the "material world", the Universe "wants" to make water. For this to happen, It needs to combine -- through Its NATURAL FORCES -- one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. When it does so, the dynamic, coherent system of CO2 could be said to be "focused" on performing the function of water.

If the carbon atom and two oxygen atoms did NOT come together, they would be "scattered".

This may be said to be a metaphor for what might be going on in the "realm" of consciousness. If "particles of consciousness" never came together through natural accretive forces, then consciousness (thought) would remain "scattered", performing no particular function.

Only when they accrete, say, into the consciousness of a fish, or a bear, or a star, do they perform a function and are "focused" on performing that function.

I have to admit that I am finding it very difficult to translate my speculations into models for the sake of discussion.

Nonetheless, I will persist.

For instance, I made a typo in the posting you referenced. I did NOT mean to say "light matter"; I mean to say " LIKE matter" with regard to the accretion process. Thus, your response is not on point to what I was TRYING to say.

The Universe is INANIMATE?? Or, an EARLY ORGANISM?

I say it is VERY ANIMATE and an ORGANISM of the GREATEST COMPLEXITY!

As I have maintained before: The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

If that ain't livin', I don't know what is! And neither do you.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Mentat..(God: I wish I could lift quotes like the rest of you. Can't find how on faq.)

Oh, just use "

" at the beginning of the part you want to quote then "/quote"(i removed the brakets because I quoted myself, but when you're quoting, use brackets) after the last part you want to quote. Or, you could just press the "quote" button on the post you want to quote. see! nothing to it!

side note: if you want something bold, for example, just write [b(don't want to bold anything here, so I had only one braket)
before the word(s) and [/b] at the end of what you're "bolding"

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
No, I do not mean that "scattered thoughts" are unconscious thoughts and "focused thoughts" are conscious thoughts.

Actually, I was being FIGURATIVE! So let me explain it this way...

Let's say that, in the "material world", the Universe "wants" to make water. For this to happen, It needs to combine -- through Its NATURAL FORCES -- one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. When it does so, the dynamic, coherent system of CO2 could be said to be "focused" on performing the function of water.

If the carbon atom and two oxygen atoms did NOT come together, they would be "scattered".

This may be said to be a metaphor for what might be going on in the "realm" of consciousness. If "particles of consciousness" never came together through natural accretive forces, then consciousness (thought) would remain "scattered", performing no particular function.

Only when they accrete, say, into the consciousness of a fish, or a bear, or a star, do they perform a function and are "focused" on performing that function.

I have to admit that I am finding it very difficult to translate my speculations into models for the sake of discussion.

Nonetheless, I will persist.

For instance, I made a typo in the posting you referenced. I did NOT mean to say "light matter"; I mean to say " LIKE matter" with regard to the accretion process. Thus, your response is not on point to what I was TRYING to say.

The Universe is INANIMATE?? Or, an EARLY ORGANISM?

I say it is VERY ANIMATE and an ORGANISM of the GREATEST COMPLEXITY!

As I have maintained before: The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

If that ain't livin', I don't know what is! And neither do you.

heh, when you put it that way, you do have a point. How do you apply theoretical physics to this?
Mentat said that the rocks could be considered alive. The universe isn't conscious, I don't believe, but it is alive. I rest my case for the time being, unitl some good argument pops up.

 

[M. Gaspar]

MajinVegeta...

We don't have to go to "theoretical physics" we can stick with Newtonian as a PARALLEL to what MIGHT be going on in the "realm" of consciousness.

I speculate that there is a force in the "realm" of consciousness that CORRESPONDS to gravity...and that consciousness ACCRETES.

As to whether or not the Universe is conscious, I find it amusing that you can concede that it is "alive" but can't go so far as to think that It is "conscious".

I need time to regroup. However, trust me, another "good arguement" will "pop up".

Meanwhile, thanks for the technical info. Will try it when I'm feeling COURAGEOUS.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

You have no idea how much I HATE the "electron on circle" model I have posited above.

Still, at this moment, I cannot think of anything more illustrative of how consciousness may "inhabit" an entity...while a portion of it "reaches out" BEYOND the Entity...still dependent on the Entity to accrete more consciousness (EVOLVE).

Please "see" the "circle" as a "dynamic electric charge" or something. Honestly, I'm at a loss...but don't write me off just yet.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
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.

I didn't say that rocks had any kind of conciousness. I was, in fact, saying quite the opposite.

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.

All of this is based on the idea that there is a quantum of consciousness. I really doubt this. Also, if there was one, then why can't we detect it within our brains, as it must be pretty advanced by now?

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.

This is an admirable quality, that you appreciate my counter-arguments, and use them to refine the way that you describe things. If only others could show such humility.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
No, I do not mean that "scattered thoughts" are unconscious thoughts and "focused thoughts" are conscious thoughts.

Actually, I was being FIGURATIVE! So let me explain it this way...

Let's say that, in the "material world", the Universe "wants" to make water. For this to happen, It needs to combine -- through Its NATURAL FORCES -- one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. When it does so, the dynamic, coherent system of CO2 could be said to be "focused" on performing the function of water.

If the carbon atom and two oxygen atoms did NOT come together, they would be "scattered".

This may be said to be a metaphor for what might be going on in the "realm" of consciousness. If "particles of consciousness" never came together through natural accretive forces, then consciousness (thought) would remain "scattered", performing no particular function.

Only when they accrete, say, into the consciousness of a fish, or a bear, or a star, do they perform a function and are "focused" on performing that function.

I have to admit that I am finding it very difficult to translate my speculations into models for the sake of discussion.

Nonetheless, I will persist.

For instance, I made a typo in the posting you referenced. I did NOT mean to say "light matter"; I mean to say " LIKE matter" with regard to the accretion process. Thus, your response is not on point to what I was TRYING to say.

The Universe is INANIMATE?? Or, an EARLY ORGANISM?

I say it is VERY ANIMATE and an ORGANISM of the GREATEST COMPLEXITY!

As I have maintained before: The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

If that ain't livin', I don't know what is! And neither do you.

The universe is not responsive to it's parts! It's parts are responsive to each other - and in a highly chaotic manner, mind you.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You have no idea how much I HATE the "electron on circle" model I have posited above.

Still, at this moment, I cannot think of anything more illustrative of how consciousness may "inhabit" an entity...while a portion of it "reaches out" BEYOND the Entity...still dependent on the Entity to accrete more consciousness (EVOLVE).

Please "see" the "circle" as a "dynamic electric charge" or something. Honestly, I'm at a loss...but don't write me off just yet.

OK. And yet, I don't see how you can think that the quantum of consciousness can only be passed on when an organism dies.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

I CANNOT AS YET CAPTURE QUOTES!

I did what MajinVegeta said THREE DIFFERENT WAYS.

First, I hit the "quote" button above

and a window opens up

on the upper lefthand corner that allows me to type in words...but THAT can't be it. I can't believe everyone RETYPES those extended quotes.

So then I just typed

and then tried to highlight something below and then do the /quote at the end of it (per MV) but that didn't work either.

Then I tried to type

in front of the paragraph in the actual post. Nothing.

Please, someone, be very specific in the steps I need to take to capture quotes.

Meanwhile, I know how to work with the fonts but I don't have a clue what the boxes under those buttons do.

Was I supposed to have been BORN with this knowledge?

Meanwhile, Mentat... what do YOU mean when YOU say "quantum of consciousness"?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Okay, detailed steps:

If you wish to seperately quote portions of a quote, press the "quote" button on each corner of the post. Then,
Put "

" right before what you want to quote. then, put /quote (with brackets before and after /quote) at the very end of what you wish to quote.
example:

yadda yadda bla bla [/quote

note: in this example, I have (as I repeatedly pointed out, and want to make very clear) left out one braket, other wise you won't be able to see the html.

Anyhow, the case (i.e., capital, lower case) is irrelavent. Remember, if everyone else can do it, so can you!

Then I tried to type "quote" in front of the paragraph in the actual post. Nothing.

At the end of the part you want to quote, type "

". Remember that it always has to have brackets. the "/" indicates something like "until here" in html.

Meanwhile, I know how to work with the fonts but I don't have a clue what the boxes under those buttons do

What buttons are you referring to ?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Okay, detailed steps:

If you wish to seperately quote portions of a quote, press the "quote" button on each corner of the post. Then,
Put "

I see, and now I insert MY response via the "Edit" button. Let's see if this works.

At the end of the part you want to quote, type "

". Remember that it always has to have brackets. the "/" indicates something like "until here" in html.


What buttons are you referring to ? [/QUOTE]

 

[M. Gaspar]

As you see above MV...

I could only capture your entire posting PLUS I could not respond "outside of" your quote...but "inside", as you see.

Next, I tried to isolate one portion of your posting by putting a " where I wanted to start both BEFORE and AFTER hitting quote button. Doing it BEFORE yeilded nothing. There was no AFTER because it immediately captured your entire quote.

Wasting postings on this thread -- and boring others emmensely -- is probably not what I should be doing. Shall we waste two more on this, or not?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

Originally posted by Mentat
The universe is not responsive to it's parts! It's parts are responsive to each other - and in a highly chaotic manner, mind you.

Mentat: I am sure that if one were able to observe the electrical impulses of your brain, say, when you were posting your last response to me above, you would say that it looked "highly chaotic".

However, if one looks at the RESULTS one sees that there must have been SOME order to it, in that you were able (1) read my posting, (2) process its contents, (3) formulate a response and (4) post it.

So, my first point is that something may APPEAR chaotic to our eyes even though something very COHERENT is going on.

But even if I conceded (which I do not) that the Universe is 99% DISORDER, let's take a look at the human body. We have within each of us a chemical and electrical communications systems. Our parts are talking to each other all the time. When we get depressed, our brains COMMUNICATE this to all of our parts. When a part gets hurt, it COMMUNICATES this to our brain.

I am a living, conscious entity that's responsive to all of my parts...maybe not consciously -- which, for me, is an alternate use of the word conscious meaning MINDFUL...if you can get the distinction. (We could say more about UNsconscious consciousness if we must.)

Meanwhile, look at the coherent complexity of the dynamic system that is the human body...or that of a galaxy...or that of the Universe as a whole. Of course, that's what we're TRYING to do -- wrap our minds around the Universe, so to speak -- with varying degrees of success.

Meanwhile, please respond to my question: what do YOU mean when you use the term "quantum of consciousness"?

 

[Mentat]

Forgive my not having been able to answer before. I only get on-line for one hour per day, so I probably got off-line before you (M. Gaspar) ever posted those last couple of posts.

Anyway, M. Gaspar, look at the bottom-right part of this post. Look for the icon that says "quote". If you click on that, you will have captured everything that I say in this post, within a "quote box". Also, if you type the following: quote (withing brackets) and /quote (also within brackets), then whatever you type in between them will appear in a quote box.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Mentat: I am sure that if one were able to observe the electrical impulses of your brain, say, when you were posting your last response to me above, you would say that it looked "highly chaotic".

No, the firing of neurons is orderly, otherwise the thought would not be orderly. This is what distinguishes dreams from conscious thoughts, dreams are so "out there" because they are based on chaotic firings of neurons, and nearly random connections of syanpses.

So, my first point is that something may APPEAR chaotic to our eyes even though something very COHERENT is going on.

This may be so. And yet, the opposite is true, when it comes to the universe, which is a point that you didn't want to accept. The universe is trying to attain greater disorder, and the "COHERENT chunks" are just by-products, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

But even if I conceded (which I do not) that the Universe is 99% DISORDER, let's take a look at the human body. We have within each of us a chemical and electrical communications systems. Our parts are talking to each other all the time. When we get depressed, our brains COMMUNICATE this to all of our parts. When a part gets hurt, it COMMUNICATES this to our brain.

I am a living, conscious entity that's responsive to all of my parts...maybe not consciously -- which, for me, is an alternate use of the word conscious meaning MINDFUL...if you can get the distinction. (We could say more about UNsconscious consciousness if we must.)

And we must, because "mindful" and "conscious" are exactly synonymous.

Meanwhile, please respond to my question: what do YOU mean when you use the term "quantum of consciousness"?

I mean the hypothetical quantum that you have spoken of in your illustration. I don't believe that it exists, but I'm asking you questions about "it" to see if it's even a reasonable idea.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, the firing of neurons is orderly, otherwise the thought would not be orderly. This is what distinguishes dreams from conscious thoughts, dreams are so "out there" because they are based on chaotic firings of neurons, and nearly random connections of syanpses.



The firing of neurons may, indeed, be "orderly" in that they fire in specific sequences to retrieve a memory or advance a thought. However, for one "looking down" on the firings throughout the neuronal network, the firings would not SEEM "orderly" because we really wouldn't understand the "connections" being made.




This may be so. And yet, the opposite is true, when it comes to the universe, which is a point that you didn't want to accept. The universe is trying to attain greater disorder, and the "COHERENT chunks" are just by-products, according to the second law of thermodynamics.



It literally ASTOUNDS me that you (and I suppose most others?) believe this is true. Please point to something that is DISordered, so I can get my bearings within your point of view.

Meanwhile, the second law of thermodynamics suggests that the entropy of a closed system increases over time. In a closed syste, an increase in entropy is accompanied by a decrease in energy available. And there's the rub! There is NOT a loss of energy in the closed system that is the Universe because of a law I like a lot better...that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Thus, a part of the Universe may SEEM to be falling into disorder...say, like when a star goes supernova...but that's because we are "witnessing" -- or only THINKING ABOUT -- one small snapshot of a process that may be sending "star stuff" into the Universe that will eventually be used to make something else!



And we must, because "mindful" and "conscious" are exactly synonymous.


Not in my lexicon. Consciousness is on a continuum. The consciousness of a grain of sand will be different than that of a tree, which will be different than that of you and me. There are also LEVELS of consciousness: a person dreaming still has a form of consciousness. There is still consciousness in UNconsciousness. And the subconscious another level of consciousnees, too.

Also, dreams are NOT totally "random firings" because they are orderly enough to form IMAGES and TELL STORIES to ourselves.



I mean the hypothetical quantum that you have spoken of in your illustration. I don't believe that it exists, but I'm asking you questions about "it" to see if it's even a reasonable idea.

You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.

Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.

Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.

Better post this before I get disconnected AGAIN.

 

[M. Gaspar]

OH MY GOD...

I STILL do not know how to use the quote & reply feature properly. Please note, Mentat, that I responded to YOUR responses WITHIN your response.

Apparently, you're right: some systems ARE disorderly!

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I STILL do not know how to use the quote & reply feature properly. Please note, Mentat, that I responded to YOUR responses WITHIN your response.

Apparently, you're right: some systems ARE disorderly!

Gaspar just above the reply botton there is a "quote" button.
Just push on it ... a new frame opens containing the message of the other ... and start typing. ;-)

If you want to react on specific sentences just copy the whole message of the other, paste it into that frame and delete the sentence you don't need.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by pelastration
Gaspar just above the reply botton there is a "quote" button.
Just push on it ... a new frame opens containing the message of the other ... and start typing. ;-)

If you want to react on specific sentences just copy the whole message of the other, paste it into that frame and delete the sentence you don't need.

;-)

Now I will see if your quote looks different from my response.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Pelastration...

Why is my ;-) showing? Or was that a typo on YOUR part which I mistook for something I needed to do to get the quote serparate from the response?

I know I'm a crackpot...but a dunderhead, too?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.

Not so much by accident, as by the fact that all things take the path of least resistance, which is why the universe is tending toward disorder (Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.

Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.

However, if these little quanta of consciousness have any mass, then the more massive something is, the more aware it should be. However, this is not the case.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

I'm thinking that consciousness does NOT have "mass"...and the "accretion of consciousness" is not actually a "clustering together of a growing mass of consciousness particles"...but rather that, each "particle" of consciousness is more like an ADDED SITE to a complex NETWORK that EXTENDS BEYOND the being (or rock) it is "hooked up" to.

I need time to think about how to express this better...tho I'm tempted to try again right now:

Think about the brain. It imprints memories and information NOT in one specific place or another. No. Instead, it engages many of its neurons to imprint a memory, which, in turn, get "fired again" when one remembers the specific memory.

The more neurons, the better. And yet, an increase in what we we learn or remember or think does NOT increase the MASS of our brain. It's the PROCESS that's important...how the brain is set up to work.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'm thinking that consciousness does NOT have "mass"...and the "accretion of consciousness" is not actually a "clustering together of a growing mass of consciousness particles"...but rather that, each "particle" of consciousness is more like an ADDED SITE to a complex NETWORK that EXTENDS BEYOND the being (or rock) it is "hooked up" to.

I need time to think about how to express this better...tho I'm tempted to try again right now:

Think about the brain. It imprints memories and information NOT in one specific place or another. No. Instead, it engages many of its neurons to imprint a memory, which, in turn, get "fired again" when one remembers the specific memory.

The more neurons, the better. And yet, an increase in what we we learn or remember or think does NOT increase the MASS of our brain. It's the PROCESS that's important...how the brain is set up to work.

Like I explained in the thread 'Everything came from nothing' we have to describe a high level property of matter and material forms, like consciousness on a specific level. We are aware we think with our brain, and our consciouss being is based on the material properties of our brain. Yet it is not much use to describe such high order phenomena as consciousness, in terms of the matter that forms the brain.
Large huuricanes also consists of moving air molecules. But the property of a hurricane can not be found just by stuyding the properties of individual air molecules. Without other knowledge, like that the flow of air is caused by differences of pressure in the atmosphere, and that these differences in air pressure are caused by heating and cooling of air, we would not be able to explain hurricanes.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.

Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.

Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.

Better post this before I get disconnected AGAIN.

Our minds have formulated clear and distinct categories for phenomena. Like we know about life and about death, and that they are opposites. Using Aristotelian logic, something which is dead can not be life, and vice versa.
In reality though we don't see this clear distinction. It's lifeless matter that changes and become living matter in the course of time. Consciousness, as the highest order of order in material, costed more as 3 billion years to form. Now where did all of a sudden consciousness arise our of no-consciousness? This distinct line, seperating the two, in reality doesn't exist, what we see is continuous, and gradual steps, small changes, that contribute in the larger framework to large changes. We see quantity turn into quality.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
The more neurons, the better.

Then why is consciousness not restricted to only the things that actually have neurons?

And yet, an increase in what we we learn or remember or think does NOT increase the MASS of our brain.

I know this. This is why I asked about the Quanta of Consciousness, that you seemed to think were scattered but could "clump together".

It's the PROCESS that's important...how the brain is set up to work.

Exactly! That's why the universe can't be conscious; it has to be "set up to work" that way, and it's not.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat

Exactly! That's why the universe can't be conscious; it has to be "set up to work" that way, and it's not. [/B]

Like you know.

I say the Universe IS set up that way!


Neurons of the brain might be a view in MICROCOSM of a MACRO-MECHANISM that allows the Universe to gather and process information.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Our minds have formulated clear and distinct categories for phenomena. Like we know about life and about death, and that they are opposites. Using Aristotelian logic, something which is dead can not be life, and vice versa.
In reality though we don't see this clear distinction. It's lifeless matter that changes and become living matter in the course of time. Consciousness, as the highest order of order in material, costed more as 3 billion years to form. Now where did all of a sudden consciousness arise our of no-consciousness? This distinct line, seperating the two, in reality doesn't exist, what we see is continuous, and gradual steps, small changes, that contribute in the larger framework to large changes. We see quantity turn into quality.

Actually, you just made my point: consciousness didn't SUDDENLY arise. It has always been part of the Universe. However, like matter -- baryonic matter -- it needed to EVOLVE.

I've decided to say more on the Everything from Nothing thread.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Like you know.

I say the Universe IS set up that way!


Neurons of the brain might be a view in MICROCOSM of a MACRO-MECHANISM that allows the Universe to gather and process information.

M. Gaspar, the questioning of the universes' conscousness cannot be answered. "Like you know" goes for all of us.

One fundamental characteristic of life is reproduction. The universe posseses this. take the first law of thermodynamics. The mass of the universe is constant, never changing.

Additionally, this criteria would exclude life forms created by design. Surely, if we had been created by an intelligent God, it would not follow that we were any less alive?

Following are some of the applications that authors draw from this definition:

Note that a single human being does not satisfy the above sufficient condition to be considered living, but it is made up of cells some of which do satisfy it. A male—female pair would collectively be a system capable of self-reproduction, and so this system would satisfy the sufficient condition. In any biosphere we can imagine, some systems contained therein would satisfy it . . .

A virus satisfies the above sufficient condition, and so we consider it a living organism . . .

Automobiles, for example, must be considered alive since they contain a great deal of information, and they can self-reproduce in the sense that there are human mechanics who can make a copy of the automobile. These mechanics are to automobiles what a living cell’s biochemical machinery is to a virus. The form of automobiles in the environment is preserved by natural selection: there is a fierce struggle for existence going on between various "races" of automobiles! In America, Japanese automobiles are competing with native American automobiles for scarce resources—money paid to the manufacturer—that will result in either more American or more Japanese automobiles being built!

At least the authors are applying their definition consistently. But in doing so, they have shown that it cannot handle the easy examples. For surely a single human being is an easy example of something that is alive, and an automobile is an easy example of something that is not alive. A virus, on the other hand, is a difficult example that is considered a living thing by some biologists but not by others; it is a borderline case at best.

To summarize, the Barrow/Tipler definition of life fails two of the criteria we proposed at the start: it doesn’t handle the easy cases, and it isn’t simple (they have to add special clauses to handle cases like mules and human reproduction).

I love this essay! here's the url for those who wish to read the essay: http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm#criteria

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
M. Gaspar, the questioning of the universes' conscousness cannot be answered. "Like you know" goes for all of us.

One fundamental characteristic of life is reproduction. The universe posseses this. take the first law of thermodynamics. The mass of the universe is constant, never changing.


I love this essay! here's the url for those who wish to read the essay: http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm#criteria

I suppose, now and again, I make statements as if I "know"...but, actually, I'm fully aware that I'm only SPECULATING...so your point is well taken.

Still, when someone says definitively that the Universe is not "set up" to "think"...it begs the response "Like you know."

I suspect that our biological definition of life might not be as COMPREHENSIVE as some of us would like to believe.

For instance, if it is "true" that the Universe keeps "giving birth" to ITSELF...this would satisfy MY definition of "living".

That we cannot "know" for certain that the Universe is conscious (or not) does not mean we cannot "take the case" that It is and try to "make the case" that It is within this Forum.

Ideas evolve.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

I was telling my sister about this discussion, and she insisted there was no point in discussing something we couldn't give a definite answer to.

Anyway, how does the universe give birth to itself? Well, then again, I could see your point. Quantum fluctuations actually caused the universe as we know it to come into exitence. So, it sort of did, give birth to itself. But, as I stated before (in "Everything came from Nothing") that the universe seems to have no goal in its evolution.
On the other hand, neither do we. We live, and we die. The universe is born, then it collapses into a singularity(the Big Crunch) and dies. And it happens all over again; because black holes/singularities evaporate. so its like a cycle. Does it have a purpose?