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.
  • #241
Originally posted by Alexander
Yes, of course. The hypothesis of "soul" was discarded long ago due to lack of supporting facts.
I guess I'm more concerned with the "quality of consciousness," as this is what concerns me "specifically."

And yes I do have an entity, which is my soul, which is the very part of me that "remains conscious."

So what is it about being cognizant (conscious) that allows us to acknowledge the truth of anything? Is it just the neurons in our brain? Or, is there something more to it than that? Like a "greater consciousness" as a whole?

Wouldn't it be fair to say that consciousness entails the "awareness of reality?" If so, isn't it also conceivable that reality must in some sense entail consciousness? Otherwise, how does anything -- i.e., in terms of its relationship -- "recognize" anything else?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #242
You use so many undefined words that I don't understand what exactly you are saying.
 
  • #243
Would anyone agree that Nagel's description may have some use as a working definition: that consciousness is what an organism possesses when there is something that it is like to be itself?
 
  • #244
Originally posted by Alexander
You use so many undefined words that I don't understand what exactly you are saying.
What do you think I invent my own words? If you don't understand a word, trying looking it up in the dictionary. These are all "standard" words that you can find in any dictionary by the way.

Perhaps I can try and be a little more clear with my words, but it's not always easy trying to expain something to somebody who doesn't understand.
 
  • #245
Originally posted by akhenaten
Would anyone agree that Nagel's description may have some use as a working definition: that consciousness is what an organism possesses when there is something that it is like to be itself?
Am not familiar with Nagel? And are you saying consciousness is the "recognition factor" that exists between organisms of a like kind?
 
  • #246
Let me have a go.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I guess I'm more concerned with the "quality of consciousness," as this is what concerns me "specifically."

And yes I do have an entity, which is my soul, which is the very part of me that "remains conscious."
And this 'soul' is presumably different to your consciousness? The existence of a soul is without evidence.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So what is it about being cognizant (conscious) that allows us to acknowledge the truth of anything? Is it just the neurons in our brain? Or, is there something more to it than that? Like a "greater consciousness" as a whole?

The mind is a system which can build sophisticated models of its environment or even invent new ones. Don't know what you mean by "greater consciousness as a whole".

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Wouldn't it be fair to say that consciousness entails the "awareness of reality?" If so, isn't it also conceivable that reality must in some sense entail consciousness? Otherwise, how does anything -- i.e., in terms of its relationship -- "recognize" anything else?

Why does it have to be a two way relationship. And surely consciousness can be of something other than reality.
 
  • #247
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Am not familiar with Nagel? And are you saying consciousness is the "recognition factor" that exists between organisms of a like kind?

No. According to Nagel, if something is conscious, it is "like something" to be that thing. For example, from my subjective viewpoint, it is "like something" to be me and I imagine it is "like something" to be you - happy, sad, blurred vision, always thinking etc. I imagine there exists a perspective on reality that is you. This is probably the case with any animals too.
 
  • #248
Originally posted by akhenaten
No. According to Nagel, if something is conscious, it is "like something" to be that thing. For example, from my subjective viewpoint, it is "like something" to be me and I imagine it is "like something" to be you - happy, sad, blurred vision, always thinking etc. I imagine there exists a perspective on reality that is you. This is probably the case with any animals too.
And yet I "know" for a fact that I exist. Why? Because I'm alive and I am "conscious."

Sorry, got to go! Will try and get back to this later.
 
  • #249
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet I "know" for a fact that I exist. Why? Because I'm alive and I am "conscious."

How do you know its you? LOL!

All you really know is that some thoughts and sensations exist.
 
  • #250
Here's another one on panpsychism:

http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articles/9803141712.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #251
So, any other definition of consciouseness besides mine?

(If there is none, we then can take mine and move on to discuss universe).
 
  • #252
Originally posted by Alexander
So, any other definition of consciouseness besides mine?

(If there is none, we then can take mine and move on to discuss universe).

Fat chance! See the Nagel definition I posted above.
 
  • #253
Originally posted by akhenaten
Let me have a go.

And this 'soul' is presumably different to your consciousness? The existence of a soul is without evidence.
To whom? Who is the one to trust on this matter anyway? If science says it can't discern the matter because it's "too subjective," then obviously you can't trust science. In which case it becomes a piss-poor excuse to accept Science's word for it. So guess who becomes the expert by default then? That's right me, and rightfully so! Because I'm the one who owns the "original equipment." This is how I "know" that I have a soul. Don't let anyone else fool you!


The mind is a system which can build sophisticated models of its environment or even invent new ones. Don't know what you mean by "greater consciousness as a whole".
If as I say, I do have a soul, which is my consciousness, then there must be an even greater consciousness (or, spiritual dimension if you will) that the soul taps into which, if nothing else, is the "collective unconscious" that Jung describes.


Why does it have to be a two way relationship. And surely consciousness can be of something other than reality.
Isn't reality just another means by which to describe existence? If so, then shouldn't that entail everything, including that which seems irrational? (whether it is or not).
 
  • #254
Originally posted by Iacchus32
To whom? Who is the one to trust on this matter anyway? If science says it can't discern the matter because it's "too subjective," then obviously you can't trust science. In which case it becomes a piss-poor excuse to accept Science's word for it. So guess who becomes the expert by default then? That's right me, and rightfully so! Because I'm the one who owns the "original equipment." This is how I "know" that I have a soul. Don't let anyone else fool you!

Subjective experience is very often fallable. What is it about your subjective experience that implies you have a soul? And what is a soul anyway? And how does one tell the difference between it and a mind? I don't mean 'give me your opinion on what the difference is' I just mean, if you had a mind, but no soul, would you experience things differently?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If as I say, I do have a soul, which is my consciousness, then there must be an even greater consciousness (or, spiritual dimension if you will) that the soul taps into which, if nothing else, is the "collective unconscious" that Jung describes.

That is totally illogical - it just doesn't follow. Its the equivalent of saying 'I have an orange, therefore there must be a greater orange that my orange taps into'. Beyond shared culture and shared subconscious traits due to genetic heritage, there is no evidence for Jung's Collective Unconscious in the sense that you mean it.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Isn't reality just another means by which to describe existence? If so, then shouldn't that entail everything, including that which seems irrational? (whether it is or not).

Not sure what you mean.
 
  • #255
Originally posted by akhenaten
Subjective experience is very often fallable. What is it about your subjective experience that implies you have a soul? And what is a soul anyway? And how does one tell the difference between it and a mind? I don't mean 'give me your opinion on what the difference is' I just mean, if you had a mind, but no soul, would you experience things differently?
What is it about me that "knows" what it knows? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the acknowledgment of truth is inborn? If not, then how can we acknowledge the truth of anything? Even if it's the truth that science reveals to us? Science is still a by-product of the human endeavor, meaning it's still subject to human interpretation which, by nature is "subjective." Therefore, how do we get around the fact that we're human? Is it possible? Not according to science.

So what could that possibly suggest? ... That the answers has, and always will be, contained within the parameters of being human. Meaning, if we want to "know" the truth, then we must look within (ourselves) in order to find it.


That is totally illogical - it just doesn't follow. Its the equivalent of saying 'I have an orange, therefore there must be a greater orange that my orange taps into'. Beyond shared culture and shared subconscious traits due to genetic heritage, there is no evidence for Jung's Collective Unconscious in the sense that you mean it.
Something just doesn't arise out of nothing. Therefore there must be some sort of lineage to it or, "greater family" as a whole. Meaning, you can't just have one human being (or perhaps for a better example, say a cockroach), not without a whole myriad of them. This is what equates to the collective unconscious.


Not sure what you mean.
Although something may seem irrational (illogical) or, in the case where something has been totally falsified, it's still a part of the greater reality as a whole (and has to be accepted as such). Therefore to say something is irrational, doesn't really say anything, because the irrational exists, if only for the purpose of augmenting the rational, i.e., you can't have one without the other. Whereas what may mean seem irrational at one point, may become completely rational once understood.

Therefore to understood this, is to understand that one does have the ability to delve into the "subjective realm," and begin the process of sorting things out.
 
  • #256
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is it about me that "knows" what it knows? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the acknowledgment of truth is inborn? If not, then how can we acknowledge the truth of anything?

We can't. We don't have direct access to the truth about anything, we only have appearances.


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Even if it's the truth that science reveals to us? Science is still a by-product of the human endeavor, meaning it's still subject to human interpretation which, by nature is "subjective." Therefore, how do we get around the fact that we're human? Is it possible? Not according to science.

Science does not claim to find 'truth', the closest concept in the philosophy od science is verisimilitude,meaning 'having the appearance of truth'.


Originally posted by Iacchus32
So what could that possibly suggest? ... That the answers has, and always will be, contained within the parameters of being human. Meaning, if we want to "know" the truth, then we must look within (ourselves) in order to find it

Subjective experience is clearly fallible, more fallible in fact than science, since science has reliably and repeatably shown appearances to me wrong on many occasions.


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Something just doesn't arise out of nothing. Therefore there must be some sort of lineage to it or, "greater family" as a whole. Meaning, you can't just have one human being (or perhaps for a better example, say a cockroach), not without a whole myriad of them. This is what equates to the collective unconscious.

Well, we need to establish, first of all whether we are talking about a 'something' or whether 'conciousness' is just a viewpoint on everything else. What, if anything, consciousness arises out of, is not necessarily Jung's collective unconscious - what did THAT arise out of anyway? Panpsychism proposed that matter or the relationships between its parts has intrinsic 'protopsychic' properties.


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Although something may seem irrational (illogical) or, in the case where something has been totally falsified, it's still a part of the greater reality as a whole (and has to be accepted as such). Therefore to say something is irrational, doesn't really say anything, because the irrational exists, if only for the purpose of augmenting the rational, i.e., you can't have one without the other. Whereas what may mean seem irrational at one point, may become completely rational once understood.

Therefore to understood this, is to understand that one does have the ability to delve into the "subjective realm," and begin the process of sorting things out.

If you start thinking like that you have no hope of separating the possible from the impossible. What do you mean the irrational exists? I didn't say that the collective unconscious was impossible - (although it probably is by our current understanding) - I said your argument to demonstrate the need for its existence was irrational. I'm not sure you know what irrational mean.
 
  • #257
Originally posted by akhenaten
We can't. We don't have direct access to the truth about anything, we only have appearances.
Am afraid you can only speak for yourself here.


Science does not claim to find 'truth', the closest concept in the philosophy od science is verisimilitude,meaning 'having the appearance of truth'.
Oh, then what you're saying is truth is subjective which, if there is no such thing as absolutes (i.e., God), then it must be "totally innate." Hmmm ... either way I guess it means we're going to have to "look within."


Subjective experience is clearly fallible, more fallible in fact than science, since science has reliably and repeatably shown appearances to me wrong on many occasions.
This is your "subjective opinion" of course.


Well, we need to establish, first of all whether we are talking about a 'something' or whether 'conciousness' is just a viewpoint on everything else. What, if anything, consciousness arises out of, is not necessarily Jung's collective unconscious - what did THAT arise out of anyway? Panpsychism proposed that matter or the relationships between its parts has intrinsic 'protopsychic' properties.
How could we acknowledge anything if it weren't for the fact that we were conscious? And why can't we break it down into what makes sense, rather than go through (what seems like) all these extra mental gymnastics?


If you start thinking like that you have no hope of separating the possible from the impossible. What do you mean the irrational exists? I didn't say that the collective unconscious was impossible - (although it probably is by our current understanding) - I said your argument to demonstrate the need for its existence was irrational. I'm not sure you know what irrational mean.
The "irrational" must be considered a part of reality, even if it only exists within our minds (i.e., as abstract). For indeed what may seem irrational at one point (take for example science fiction writing), may very well become rational once properly understood.
 
  • #258
This is going nowhere. I'm not prepared to spend a lot of time discussing this with someone who has already made up his mind, does not understand 'irrationality' and naively claims to have 'direct access to reality'.
 
  • #259
Originally posted by akhenaten
This is going nowhere. I'm not prepared to spend a lot of time discussing this with someone who has already made up his mind, does not understand 'irrationality' and naively claims to have 'direct access to reality'.
Let's just say I'm more "finely tuned." We probably shouldn't be getting so far into it anyway, not without starting another thread. Of course there's already one very similar, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2745" ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #260
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Let's just say I'm more "finely tuned." We probably shouldn't be getting so far into it anyway, not without starting another thread. Of course there's already one very similar, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2745" ...

Perhaps your powers of self-deception ARE more finely tuned than most. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #261
Originally posted by akhenaten
Perhaps your powers of self-deception ARE more finely tuned than most. :)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident."
 
  • #262
"Believe the person who is seeking the truth; doubt the one who says he's found it."
 
  • #263
Originally posted by akhenaten
"Believe the person who is seeking the truth; doubt the one who says he's found it."
Do you doubt the words of Thomas Jefferson? Once again, I've started a new thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764" if you would like to continue with this, then please go there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #264


Originally posted by akhenaten
This is a REALLY long thread, so you'll have to forgive me for not reading it to check this has not already been discussed.

This is the BEST!

Processing...

Later.
 
  • #265
Latest Thinking on Human Nature: Next Week - Consciousness

I'm looking forward to this.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/humannature/article.jsp?id=23955000&sub=What%20is%20human%20nature?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #266
Don't miss these

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/humannature/sectindex.jsp?sub=Free%20will
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #267


Originally posted by akhenaten
I'm looking forward to this.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/humannature/article.jsp?id=23955000&sub=What%20is%20human%20nature?

Still no time to respond to you yet. Just asking here that when next issue comes, you'll reference it likewise.

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #268
So, because consciouseness is just an active state of some neurons, then a universe as a whole can't be conscious because it does not have neurons.

Some systems in universe, however, can be conscious (animals, aliens, computers, etc).
 
  • #269
Originally posted by Alexander
So, because consciouseness is just an active state of some neurons, then a universe as a whole can't be conscious because it does not have neurons.

Are you arguing for or against this idea? Neurons cannot be unique in a fundamental way - anything which can 'compute' in the same way could generate consciousness.

Originally posted by Alexander
Some systems in universe, however, can be conscious (animals, aliens, computers, etc).

Yes.
The whole universe migh even be seen as a giant computer - evolution for example is a sort of giant computation.
 
  • #270
Well, then Solar system is definitely conscious (because it evolves).
 

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
751
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