Possibility of a Conscious Universe: Proving Life and Awareness

  • Thread starter Thread starter M. Gaspar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life Universe
AI Thread 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.
  • #201
Inflation for beginners [part 2]

The reason why the GUTs created such a sensation when they were applied to cosmology is that they predict the existence of exactly the right kind of mechanisms to do this trick. They are called scalar fields, and they are associated with the splitting apart of the original grand unified force into the fundamental forces we know today, as the Universe began to expand and cool. Gravity itself would have split off at the Planck time, 10-43 of a second, and the strong nuclear force by about 10(exp-35) of a second. Within about 10-32 of a second, the scalar fields would have done their work, doubling the size of the Universe at least once every 10-34 of a second (some versions of inflation suggest even more rapid expansion than this).

This may sound modest, but it would mean that in 1032 of a second there were 100 doublings. This rapid expansion is enough to take a quantum fluctuation 1020 times smaller than a proton and inflate it to a sphere about 10 cm across in about 15 x 1033 seconds. At that point, the scalar field has done its work of kick-starting the Universe, and is settling down, giving up its energy and leaving a hot fireball expanding so rapidly that even though gravity can now begin to do its work of pulling everything back into a Big Crunch it will take hundreds of billions of years to first halt the expansion and then reverse it.

Curiously, this kind of exponential expansion of spacetime is exactly described by one of the first cosmological models developed using the general theory of relativity, by Willem de Sitter in 1917. For more than half a century, this de Sitter model seemed to be only a mathematical curiosity, of no relevance to the real Universe; but it is now one of the cornerstones of inflationary cosmology.

When the general theory of relativity was published in 1916, de Sitter reviewed the theory and developed his own ideas in a series of three papers which he sent to the Royal Astronomical Society in London. The third of these papers included discussion of possible cosmological models -- both what turned out to be an expanding universe (the first model of this kind to be developed, although the implications were not fully appreciated in 1917) and an oscillating universe model.

De Sitter's solution to Einstein's equations seemed to describe an empty, static Universe (empty spacetime). But in the early 1920s it was realized that if a tiny amount of matter was added to the model (in the form of particles scattered throughout the spacetime), they would recede from each other exponentially fast as the spacetime expanded. This means that the distance between two particles would double repeatedly on the same timescale, so they would be twice as far apart after one tick of some cosmic clock, four times as far apart after two ticks, eight times as far apart after three ticks, sixteen times as far apart after four ticks, and so on. It would be as if each step you took down the road took you twice as far as the previous step.

This seemed to be completely unrealistic; even when the expansion of the Universe was discovered, later in the 1920s, it turned out to be much more sedate. In the expanding Universe as we see it now, the distances between "particles" (clusters of galaxies) increase steadily -- they take one step for each click of the cosmic clock, so the distance is increased by a total of two steps after two clicks, three steps after three clicks, and so on. In the 1980s, however, when the theory of inflation suggested that the Universe really did undergo a stage of exponential expansion during the first split-second after its birth, this inflationary exponential expansion turned out to be exactly described by the de Sitter model, the first successful cosmological solution to Einstein's equations of the general theory of relativity.

One of the peculiarities of inflation is that it seems to take place faster than the speed of light. Even light takes 30 billionths of a second (3 x 10(exp-10) sec) to cross a single centimetre, and yet inflation expands the Universe from a size much smaller than a proton to 10 cm across in only 15 x 10(exp-33) sec. This is possible because it is spacetime itself that is expanding, carrying matter along for the ride; nothing is moving through spacetime faster than light, either during inflation or ever since. Indeed, it is just because the expansion takes place so quickly that matter has no time to move while it is going on and the process "freezes in" the original uniformity of the primordial quantum bubble that became our Universe.

The inflationary scenario has already gone through several stages of development during its short history. The first inflationary model was developed by Alexei Starobinsky, at the L. D. Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics in Moscow, at the end of the 1970s -- but it was not then called "inflation". It was a very complicated model based on a quantum theory of gravity, but it caused a sensation among cosmologists in what was then the Soviet Union, becoming known as the "Starobinsky model" of the Universe. Unfortunately, because of the difficulties Soviet scientists still had in traveling abroad or communicating with colleagues outside the Soviet sphere of influence at that time, the news did not spread outside their country.

In 1981, Alan Guth, then at MIT, published a different version of the inflationary scenario, not knowing anything of Starobinsky's work. This version was more accessible in both senses of the word -- it was easier to understand, and Guth was based in the US, able to discuss his ideas freely with colleagues around the world. And as a bonus, Guth came up with the catchy name "inflation" for the process he was describing. There were obvious flaws with the specific details of Guth's original model (which he acknowledged at the time). In particular, Guth's model left the Universe after inflation filled with a mess of bubbles, all expanding in their own way and colliding with one another. We see no evidence for these bubbles in the real Universe, so obviously the simplest model of inflation couldn't be right. But it was this version of the idea that made every cosmologist aware of the power of inflation.

In October 1981, there was an international meeting in Moscow, where inflation was a major talking point. Stephen Hawking presented a paper claiming that inflation could not be made to work at all, but the Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde presented an improved version, called "new inflation", which got around the difficulties with Guth's model. Ironically, Linde was the official translator for Hawking's talk, and had the embarrassing task of offering the audience the counter-argument to his own work! But after the formal presentations Hawking was persuaded that Linde was right, and inflation might be made to work after all. Within a few months, the new inflationary scenario was also published by Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, and by the end of 1982 inflation was well established. Linde has been involved in most of the significant developments with the theory since then. The next step forward came with the realization that there need not be anything special about the Planck- sized region of spacetime that expanded to become our Universe. If that was part of some larger region of spacetime in which all kinds of scalar fields were at work, then only the regions in which those fields produced inflation could lead to the emergence of a large universe like our own. Linde called this "chaotic inflation", because the scalar fields can have any value at different places in the early super-universe; it is the standard version of inflation today, and can be regarded as an example of the kind of reasoning associated with the anthropic principle (but note that this use of the term "chaos" is like the everyday meaning implying a complicated mess, and has nothing to do with the mathematical subject known as "chaos theory").

The idea of chaotic inflation led to what is (so far) the ultimate development of the inflationary scenario. The great unanswered question in standard Big Bang cosmology is what came "before" the singularity. It is often said that the question is meaningless, since time itself began at the singularity. But chaotic inflation suggests that our Universe grew out of a quantum fluctuation in some pre-existing region of spacetime, and that exactly equivalent processes can create regions of inflation within our own Universe. In effect, new universes bud off from our Universe, and our Universe may itself have budded off from another universe, in a process which had no beginning and will have no end. A variation on this theme suggests that the "budding" process takes place through black holes, and that every time a black hole collapses into a singularity it "bounces" out into another set of spacetime dimensions, creating a new inflationary universe -- this is called the baby universe scenario.

[to be continued]
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #202
Inflation for beginners [part 3]

There are similarities between the idea of eternal inflation and a self-reproducing universe and the version of the Steady State hypothesis developed in England by Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar, with their C-field playing the part of the scalar field that drives inflation. As Hoyle wryly pointed out at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in London in December 1994, the relevant equations in inflation theory are exactly the same as in his version of the Steady State idea, but with the letter "C" replaced by the Greek "Ø". "This," said Hoyle (tongue firmly in cheek) "makes all the difference in the world".

Modern proponents of the inflationary scenario arrived at these equations entirely independently of Hoyle's approach, and are reluctant to accept this analogy, having cut their cosmological teeth on the Big Bang model. Indeed, when Guth was asked, in 1980, how the then new idea of inflation related to the Steady State theory, he is reported as replying "what is the Steady State theory?" But although inflation is generally regarded as a development of Big Bang cosmology, it is better seen as marrying the best features of both the Big Bang and the Steady State scenarios.

This might all seem like a philosophical debate as futile as the argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, except for the fact that observations of the background radiation by COBE showed exactly the pattern of tiny irregularities that the inflationary scenario predicts. One of the first worries about the idea of inflation (long ago in 1981) was that it might be too good to be true. In particular, if the process was so efficient at smoothing out the Universe, how could irregularities as large as galaxies, clusters of galaxies and so on ever have arisen? But when the researchers looked more closely at the equations they realized that quantum fluctuations should still have been producing tiny ripples in the structure of the Universe even when our Universe was only something like 10(exp-25) of a centimetre across -- a hundred million times bigger than the Planck length.

The theory said that inflation should have left behind an expanded version of these fluctuations, in the form of irregularities in the distribution of matter and energy in the Universe. These density perturbations would have left an imprint on the background radiation at the time matter and radiation decoupled (about 300,000 years after the Big Bang), producing exactly the kind of nonuniformity in the background radiation that has now been seen, initially by COBE and later by other instruments. After decoupling, the density fluctuations grew to become the large scale structure of the Universe revealed today by the distribution of galaxies. This means that the COBE observations are actually giving us information about what was happening in the Universe when it was less than 10-20 of a second old.

No other theory can explain both why the Universe is so uniform overall, and yet contains exactly the kind of "ripples" represented by the distribution of galaxies through space and by the variations in the background radiation. This does not prove that the inflationary scenario is correct, but it is worth remembering that had COBE found a different pattern of fluctuations (or no fluctuations at all) that would have proved the inflationary scenario wrong. In the best scientific tradition, the theory made a major and unambiguous prediction which did "come true". Inflation also predicts that the primordial perturbations may have left a trace in the form of gravitational radiation with particular characteristics, and it is hoped that detectors sensitive enough to identify this characteristic radiation may be developed within the next ten or twenty years.

The clean simplicity of this simple picture of inflation has now, however, begun to be obscured by refinements, as inflationary cosmologists add bells and whistles to their models to make them match more closely the Universe we see about us. Some of the bells and whistles, it has to be said, are studied just for fun. Linde himself has taken great delight in pushing inflation to extremes, and offering entertaining new insights into how the Universe might be constructed. For example, could our Universe exist on the inside of a single magnetic monopole produced by cosmic inflation? According to Linde, it is at least possible, and may be likely. And in a delicious touch of irony, Linde, who now works at Stanford University, made this outrageous claim in a lecture at a workshop on the Birth of the Universe held recently in Rome, where the view of Creation is usually rather different. One of the reasons why theorists came up with the idea of inflation in the first place was precisely to get rid of magnetic monopoles -- strange particles carrying isolated north or south magnetic fields, predicted by many Grand Unified Theories of physics but never found in nature. Standard models of inflation solve the "monopole problem" by arguing that the seed from which our entire visible Universe grew was a quantum fluctuation so small that it only contained one monopole. That monopole is still out there, somewhere in the Universe, but it is highly unlikely that it will ever pass our way.

But Linde has discovered that, according to theory, the conditions that create inflation persist inside a magnetic monopole even after inflation has halted in the Universe at large. Such a monopole would look like a magnetically charged black hole, connecting our Universe through a wormhole in spacetime to another region of inflating spacetime. Within this region of inflation, quantum processes can produce monopole-antimonopole pairs, which then separate exponentially rapidly as a result of the inflation. Inflation then stops, leaving an expanding Universe rather like our own which may contain one or two monopoles, within each of which there are more regions of inflating spacetime.

The result is a never-ending fractal structure, with inflating universes embedded inside each other and connected through the magnetic monopole wormholes. Our Universe may be inside a monopole which is inside another universe which is inside another monopole, and so on indefinitely. What Linde calls "the continuous creation of exponentially expanding space" means that "monopoles by themselves can solve the monopole problem". Although it seems bizarre, the idea is, he stresses, "so simple that it certainly deserves further investigation".

That variation on the theme really is just for fun, and it is hard to see how it could ever be compared with observations of the real Universe. But most of the modifications to inflation now being made are in response to new observations, and in particular to the suggestion that spacetime may not be quite "flat" after all. In the mid-1990s, many studies (including observations made by the refurbished Hubble Space Telescope) began to suggest that there might not be quite enough matter in the Universe to make it perfectly flat -- most of the observations suggest that there is only 20 per cent or 30 per cent as much matter around as the simplest versions of inflation require. The shortfall is embarrassing, because one of the most widely publicised predictions of simple inflation was the firm requirement of exactly 100 per cent of this critical density of matter. But there are ways around the difficulty; and here are two of them to be going on with.

The first suggestion is almost heretical, in the light of the way astronomy has developed since the time of Copernicus. Is it possible that we are living near the centre of the Universe? For centuries, the history of astronomy has seen humankind displaced from any special position. First the Earth was seen to revolve around the Sun, then the Sun was seen to be an insignificant member of the Milky Way Galaxy, then the Galaxy was seen to be an ordinary member of the cosmos. But now comes the suggestion that the "ordinary" place to find observers like us may be in the middle of a bubble in a much greater volume of expanding space.

The conventional version of inflation says that our entire visible Universe is just one of many bubbles of inflation, each doing their own thing somewhere out in an eternal sea of chaotic inflation, but that the process of rapid expansion forces spacetime in all the bubbles to be flat. A useful analogy is with the bubbles that form in a bottle of fizzy cola when the top is opened. But that suggestion, along with other cherished cosmological beliefs, has now been challenged by Linde, working with his son Dmitri Linde (of CalTech) and Arthur Mezhlumian (also of Stanford).

Linde and his colleagues point out that the Universe we live in is like a hole in a sea of superdense, exponentially expanding inflationary cosmic material, within which there are other holes. All kinds of bubble universes will exist, and it is possible to work out the statistical nature of their properties. In particular, the two Lindes and Mezhlumian have calculated the probability of finding yourself in a region of this super- Universe with a particular density -- for example, the density of "our" Universe.

[to be continued]
 
  • #203
Inflation for beginners [end]

A double dose of inflation may be something to make the Government's hair turn grey -- but it could be just what cosmologists need to rescue their favourite theory of the origin of the Universe. By turning inflation on twice, they have found a way to have all the benefits of the inflationary scenario, while still leaving the Universe in an "open" state, so that it will expand forever.
In those simplest inflation models, remember, the big snag is that after inflation even the observable Universe is left like a mass of bubbles, each expanding in its own way. We see no sign of this structure, which has led to all the refinements of the basic model. Now, however, Martin Bucher and Neil Turok, of Princeton University, working with Alfred Goldhaber, of the State University of New York, have turned this difficulty to advantage.

They suggest that after the Universe had been homogenised by the original bout of inflation, a second burst of inflation could have occurred within one of the bubbles. As inflation begins (essentially at a point), the density is effectively "reset" to zero, and rises towards the critical density as inflation proceeds and energy from the inflation process is turned into mass. But because the Universe has already been homogenised, there is no need to require this bout of inflation to last until the density reaches the critical value. It can stop a little sooner, leaving an open bubble (what we see as our entire visible Universe) to carry on expanding at a more sedate rate. They actually use what looked like the fatal flaw in Guth's model as the basis for their scenario. According to Bucher and his colleagues, an end product looking very much like the Universe we live in can arise naturally in this way, with no "fine tuning" of the inflationary parameters. All they have done is to use the very simplest possible version of inflation, going back to Alan Guth's work, but to apply it twice. And you don't have to stop there. Once any portion of expanding spacetime has been smoothed out by inflation, new inflationary bubbles arising inside that volume of spacetime will all be pre-smoothed and can end up with any amount of matter from zero to the critical density (but no more). This should be enough to make everybody happy. Indeed, the biggest problem now is that the vocabulary of cosmology doesn't quite seem adequate to the task of describing all this activity.

The term Universe, with the capital "U", is usually used for everything that we can ever have knowledge of, the entire span of space and time accessible to our instruments, now and in the future. This may seem like a fairly comprehensive definition, and in the past it has traditionally been regarded as synonymous with the entirety of everything that exists. But the development of ideas such as inflation suggests that there may be something else beyond the boundaries of the observable Universe -- regions of space and time that are unobservable in principle, not just because light from them has not yet had time to reach us, or because our telescopes are not sensitive enough to detect their light.

This has led to some ambiguity in the use of the term "Universe". Some people restrict it to the observable Universe, while others argue that it should be used to refer to all of space and time. If we use "Universe" as the name for our own expanding bubble of spacetime, everything that is in principle visible to our telescopes, then maybe the term "Cosmos" can be used to refer to the entirety of space and time, within which (if the inflationary scenario is correct) there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, other universes with which we can never communicate. Cosmologists ought to be happy with the suggestion, since it makes their subject infinitely bigger and therefore infinitely more important!

Further reading: John Gribbin, Companion to the Cosmos, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996.
 
  • #204
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Are you working on your own hypothesis?

Yes, I THOUGHT I was...but the more I "surf the net" the more I have come to see that I've been "scooped"!

Still, I seem to bring out enough disagreement within these threads to keep it interesting (for me)...while pointing to the "fact" that so many "aren't there yet".

:wink:
 
  • #205
Iacchus:

Here it is. Input welcome.
 
  • #206
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #207
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?

conscious is a byproduct of a series of evolutionary events that took place on earth. why are humans always trying to personify inanimate objects by giving them a concious. i think we simply cannot understand what it truly means to be 'unconcious'.
 
  • #208


Originally posted by maximus
i think we simply cannot understand what it truly means to be 'unconcious'.
That must be true!
"understand" is contradicting with "unconscious".
It's like eating soup with a fork.

By using the brain you will not 'know' what unconsciousness is.

Learning how to create THETA brainwaves may give you although some access to deeper areas of collective unconsciousness (CG Jung) and areas of interconnectedness.
 
Last edited:
  • #209


Originally posted by pelastration


It's like eating soup with a fork.


i have occasionally eaten soup with a fork.
 
  • #210


Originally posted by maximus
i have occasionally eaten soup with a fork.

yah ... I do it always with Chinese sticks.
 
  • #211


Originally posted by pelastration

yah ... I do it always with Chinese sticks.

...that's why they're so thin !
 
  • #212


Originally posted by maximus
conscious is a byproduct of a series of evolutionary events that took place on earth. why are humans always trying to personify inanimate objects by giving them a concious. i think we simply cannot understand what it truly means to be 'unconcious'.

Are you saying that the evolution of consciousness in the Universe is an "accident"?

I say there's a "bit" of consciousness in EVERYTHING -- elementary particles, galaxies, the works !

If "matter" (i.e., bound-up energy) evolves via EXISTING INGREDIENTS ...perhaps CONSCIOUSNESS is an inherent , pre-existing "ingredient", too.
 
  • #213


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Are you saying that the evolution of consciousness in the Universe is an "accident"?

That's what a good majority of Evolutionary Biologists will tell you (if not all of them).

I say there's a "bit" of consciousness in EVERYTHING -- elementary particles, galaxies, the works !

And might one ask why you think this way?

If "matter" (i.e., bound-up energy) evolves via EXISTING INGREDIENTS ...perhaps CONSCIOUSNESS is an inherent , pre-existing "ingredient", too.

Then what is the purpose of complex collections of neurons (brains)?
 
  • #214


Originally posted by Mentat
That's what a good majority of Evolutionary Biologists will tell you (if not all of them).

Historically speaking, many people have held view at the SAME TIME that, eventually, were proven "wrong"...or incomplete.

What the MAJORITY of EXPERTS think should not prevent a person from considering other possibilities.

And might one ask why you think this way?

A series of thoughts led me to this possibility. I am, at this time, gathering and organizing said thoughts so as to make a coherent -- if not believeable -- case.

Suffice it to say here that I'm starting from the premise that the Universe is an eternal, closed system with inherent forces, processes and INGREDIENTS that go into creating all that is...and that among those "ingredients" is CONSCIOUSNESS.

That a "kernal"of consciousness exists in EVERYTHING would account for certain of my (and others') life experiences that seem to indicate an "inner-connectedness" that operates beyond the physical.

Then what is the purpose of complex collections of neurons (brains)?

How does the speculation that "consciousness exists -- to varying degrees -- in all things PRECLUDE the comlex operation of the brain?

All I'm saying is that the "substance" of consciousness existed (EXISTS) as RAW "MATERIAL" for the ACCRETION of the "level of consciousness" that is "centered" in the brain...tho, I need to add, not CONFINED to it. Hence, the "inter-connectedness" I'm speaking of.

I realize my responses are clumsy and unconvincing at this time, but I'll get better a stating my case by responding to thoughtful objections such as yours.
 
  • #215
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I have the will to live! ... Yes, but where did that will come from? ... Out of non-existence?

A property of matter inherited by 3 billion years of evolution.
 
  • #216
Originally posted by heusdens
A property of matter inherited by 3 billion years of evolution.
And yet "the fact" that I'm conscious tells me everything, even where I came from ...
 
  • #217
Define "conscious" (to make sure that we and you know what we are talking about, and also to be sure that we talk about the same animal).
 
  • #218
Originally posted by Alexander
Define "conscious" (to make sure that we and you know what we are talking about, and also to be sure that we talk about the same animal).
Don't you know what consciousness is? Aren't you "aware" of "the fact" that I'm talking to you? If you are, then doesn't that suggest you are conscious?
 
  • #219
Originally posted by Alexander
Define "conscious" (to make sure that we and you know what we are talking about, and also to be sure that we talk about the same animal).

Thanks for the lead. Had much about "symmetry"...a peripheral interest.

Here's what I'm talking about with regard to consciousness:

Consciousness is a "substance" -- albeit massless -- that exists "within" (as an integral part of) -- all matter...from elementary particles to large dynamic coherent systems like galaxies...or the Universe Itself.

You may dismiss this proposition as unfounded and unproveable...but given a few more posts, I could make a reasonable case.
 
  • #220
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Thanks for the lead. Had much about "symmetry"...a peripheral interest.

Here's what I'm talking about with regard to consciousness:

Consciousness is a "substance" -- albeit massless -- that exists "within" (as an integral part of) -- all matter...from elementary particles to large dynamic coherent systems like galaxies...or the Universe Itself.

You may dismiss this proposition as unfounded and unproveable...but given a few more posts, I could make a reasonable case.
But isn't consciousness also a property? The property that one "knows" one exists?
 
  • #221
Originally posted by Iacchus32
But isn't consciousness also a property? The property that one "knows" one exists?

Before I respond, let me say that the following in PURE SPECULATION:

"Consciousness" is a "property" because we deem it so...but only AFTER it has "accreted" into a "dynamic coherent system" -- such as the human mind -- that is recognizable (by us) to deem it so.

In other words, consciousness COULD be a "substance" that is integral to ALL matter -- elemental or large systems -- but when, as an example, it "resides" in a ROCK, we cannot recognize it as such because a rock is not DOING THINGS that we associate with being CONSCIOUS.

I believe that consciousness -- as a PROPERTY -- is on a continuum so that elementary particles might have a "miniscule awareness of self" which may or may not include "context" (its place in the scheme of things) while entitites such as ourselves have a little MORE self-awareness and sense of context.

The "operational component" of the ACCRETION OF CONSCIOUSNESS might be similar to the accretion of "matter" (which is, remember, bound-up energy; hence the quotes)...that a "force" corresponding to gravity operates to "pull" the "substance" of consciousness together...not necessarilly in a "mass" ...but as a far-reaching NETWORK.

And please don't remind me that gravity is NOT a "force" but an effect of mass on space. Whatever it is, it serves the FUNCTION of drawing matter together into dynamic coherent systems ...and I am PROPOSING that consciousness accretes the same way .

Remember: there was a time, many moons ago, when someone proposed that matter was comprised of "atoms". Hundreds of years later, we finally "saw" them (via a scanning tunneling microscope). Matter didn't arise/coallesce from "nothing"; it came from elementary particles that began to fuse.

I am saying that the PROPERTY of CONSCIOUSNESS did not come from "nothing" either: it came from the ACCRETION of "elementary particles" of consciousness which, like "matter", was FRAGMENTED out of a Primal Singularity at the time of the (most recent) Big Bang.
 
  • #222
Or maybe consciousness is a "binding element" which draws attention to itself, for instance in the example of a rock, where the rock says -- through our conscious awareness of it -- "Hey, I am a rock."

Really, all I know is that I am conscious, and it belies the fact that I have a soul.
 
  • #223
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or maybe consciousness is a "binding element" which draws attention to itself, for instance in the example of a rock, where the rock says -- through our conscious awareness of it -- "Hey, I am a rock."

Really, all I know is that I am conscious, and it belies the fact that I have a soul.

Say what?

How does having consciousness "belie the fact" that one has a soul? Taking my speculations a bit farther, I could say that "spirit" is a "substance" too -- like consciousness and baryonic matter -- which ALSO exists as PART of Everything That Is.

Of course, spirit or soul is even HARDER to prove -- or even TALK ABOUT -- than consciousness. At least we can EXPERIENCE our OWN consciousness more or less "objectively"...but spirit? Its PURELY SUBJECTIVE.

Still, I prefer to believe that there is a "spiritual component" to the Universe...tho I'm not prepared to characterize what it may be. Perhaps "spirit" is the EMOTIONAL component of the Universe, whereas "matter" is Its PHYSICALITY and "consciousness" is It's MIND.

Perhaps on another thread we can discuss the "substance of spirit"...but I'd personally rather wait until I feel I have completely made my case regarding consciousness.

To do this, I will be responding to some month-old posts which I have printed out from SEVERAL threads. All I need is TIME. Good luck with that.
 
  • #224
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Say what?

How does having consciousness "belie the fact" that one has a soul? Taking my speculations a bit farther, I could say that "spirit" is a "substance" too -- like consciousness and baryonic matter -- which ALSO exists as PART of Everything That Is.

Of course, spirit or soul is even HARDER to prove -- or even TALK ABOUT -- than consciousness. At least we can EXPERIENCE our OWN consciousness more or less "objectively"...but spirit? Its PURELY SUBJECTIVE.
This is not hard for me to prove, because I "know" that I exist. This is the ground of my being, which is my soul (identity).

Still, I prefer to believe that there is a "spiritual component" to the Universe...tho I'm not prepared to characterize what it may be. Perhaps "spirit" is the EMOTIONAL component of the Universe, whereas "matter" is Its PHYSICALITY and "consciousness" is It's MIND.
The Father (Mind) ... The Son (Flesh/Heart) ... The Holy Ghost (Soul) ... These are the three components to existence which, should be addressed as One (not three).

Perhaps on another thread we can discuss the "substance of spirit"...but I'd personally rather wait until I feel I have completely made my case regarding consciousness
Yes, spirit is the element of the soul, which is tied to our "emotional state" -- "of being." And yet spirit also "conveys" consciousness.

To do this, I will be responding to some month-old posts which I have printed out from SEVERAL threads. All I need is TIME. Good luck with that.
Okee dokee ... :wink:
 
  • #225
Originally posted by Iacchus32
. Really, all I know is that I am conscious, and it belies the fact that I have a soul.

"Belies" means "to show to be false". Thus, your sentense says that the fact that you are conscious shows that having a soul is NOT TRUE. Which, I don't think is what you mean.
 
  • #226
Originally posted by Iacchus32
This is not hard for me to prove, because I "know" that I exist. This is the ground of my being, which is my soul (identity).

The Father (Mind) ... The Son (Flesh/Heart) ... The Holy Ghost (Soul) ... These are the three components to existence which, should be addressed as One (not three).

Yes, spirit is the element of the soul, which is tied to our "emotional state" -- "of being." And yet spirit also "conveys" consciousness.

Okee dokee ... :wink:

I personally have to FORCE MYSELF to "identify" with my "soul". Mostly, I'm focused "here".

However, in moments when I'm making a DECISION as to how to RESPOND to a given situation -- especially one that tempts me to be LESS than my "highest self" -- I look to my own SPIRIT to point the way to my HIGHEST RESPONSE.

Sometimes, I cannot resist the temptation -- say, to reveal my "impatience" or "annoyance" -- and indulge MYSELF...and IGNORE my SOUL. Then I "mop up"!

Regarding the "Trinity" of which you speak: I DO NOT COMPUTE...except for the fact that EVERYTHING -- whatever that "everything" might be -- is ONE!
 
  • #227
Gaspar ... read this

http://home.sprynet.com/~jowolf/essay.htm#THE%20WHOLE%20AND%20ITS%20PARTS:%20THE%20HOLON
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #228
16 pages of "blah blah blah..." and not a single definition of the object of discussion (consciouseness).

So, WHAT are you talking about (and for so long)?
 
  • #229
Originally posted by Alexander
So, WHAT are you talking about (and for so long)?
Markopoulou Kalamara can explain the structure of spacetime. In particular, she argues that the abstract loops can produce one of the most distinctive features of Einstein's theory-- light cones, regions of spacetime within which light, or anything else, can reach a particular event.

The problem is that you have not the imagination to understand that Kalamara's abstract loops can explain everything if it is a membrane that loops. She stopped to early in her logic excercise.

But Alexander ... thanks for the interesting link (in your new thread on the hurdles).
 
  • #230
What I am saying - define the object of discussion.

WHAT is being discussed?
 
  • #231


Originally posted by pelastration
http://home.sprynet.com/~jowolf/essay.htm#THE%20WHOLE%20AND%20ITS%20PARTS:%20THE%20HOLON

Pelastration:

I couldn't "get there from here"...couldn't connect.

Is your response to Alexander enough for me to know?

Remember, I'm not into "structure" [zz)] ...only "process" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #232
Originally posted by Alexander
What I am saying - define the object of discussion.

WHAT is being discussed?

I know you're not talking to me because all I DO is talk about consciousness!

As I said before, went to the site you referenced, and found it interesting. I even emailed one of the "principals" (named Hill) about something specific...tho I doubt if he'll respond.

What's YOUR take on consciousness?
 
  • #233
William Seager on Panpsychism

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.

"The natural interpretation of both the quantum eraser and the simpler, basic two-slit experiment is that there is a noncausal, but information laden connection amongst the elements of a quantum system. And this connection is not a bit channel or any sort of causal process (which shows once again, incidentally, that we are dealing here with a semantic sense of information). Here, perhaps, we find a new, nontrivial and highly significant sense in which information is truly a fundamental feature of the world (maybe the fundamental feature).

It seems to me possible to use this more robust sense of the fundamental nature of information to mold a theory which takes consciousness to be itself a fundamental feature of the world, where I mean by fundamental something elemental, not dependent upon the satisfaction of any functional description by any physical system, and not subservient to the principle of causal grounding. Chalmers himself makes a gesture towards such a theory in his remarks on information and notes that such a theory is 'not as implausible as it is often thought to be' (p. 217). We might as well be blunt about it: the theory at issue is panpsychism, which is the doctrine that 'all matter, or all nature, is itself psychical, or has a psychical aspect' (this from the OED), and it is indeed thought to be implausible. I offer a defence of it only with great diffidence. The generation problem seems real to me and sufficiently difficult to warrant fairly untrammelled speculation. Several strands of thought, some in defence of and some attacking panpsychism also come together in a curiously satisfying way once we unite the ideas that consciousness is a foundational feature of the world with our new notion of information and its significance. "

- from http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/CONSC_INFO_PANPSY.html
William Seager

This once fringe concept seems to be being proposed by theorists from the fields of neuroscience through to quantum physics as a solution to the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'. How can consciousness emerge from something quite different - matter - unless matter has properties which can act as building blocks for mental activity? The theory proposes that matter has inherent 'proto-psychic' properties, specifically informational qualities and that subject and object relationships in terms of information are funadamental to the universe.

Here are some more related links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/science/story/0,12450,884678,00.html
God Is the Machine
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/
http://mattersofconsequence.com/cmtu3htm.html
http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Tucson/4.htm
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online3.html#neuroscience
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/Pen-Ham/Funda-Mentality/Fundamentality.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #234


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Pelastration:
I couldn't "get there from here"...couldn't connect.
Is your response to Alexander enough for me to know?
This must be better: http://home.sprynet.com/~jowolf/essay.htm
It's on holons and interconnectivity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #235
Originally posted by M. Gaspar


What's YOUR take on consciousness?

Plain and simple. First, I would define it in order to know WHAT is being discussed.

Of course, anyone is welcomed to give any "preliminary" definition of the subject of discussion. Then we can work on "coomon ground" or pick the "most popular" ot "most logical" definition. Only afer EVERYBODY will agree on exactly what is meant by "consciouseness" we can discuss if universe is conscious or not.

Basicly, discussion is meaningfull only if all participants mean the SAME animal. When one person by word, say, "fruit" means only orange and another only apple, they obviousely will disagree on many properties of an object they label as "fruit" . Say, on color, on taste, shape, origin, life cycle, chemical composition, etc.

My definition of consciouseness is as follows. Consciouseness is active state of neurons responsible for speach (including thoughts which are just activity of speach neurons but without engaging motor neurons of throat muscles), or of neurons responsible for hearing, or of neurons responsible for vision.

Active state of vast majority of the rest neurons is what we cal "sub-consciouseness" (information processing is their responsibility, by the way - as in any other animal brain). Inactive state of first group of neurons is what we call "sleep", inactivity of almost all neurons except resonsible for basics (respiration, basic chemical balance, etc) is what we call "unconcsiousness".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #236
Alexander,

First, I agree it is necessary to agree, at least more or less about what 'consciousness' means in order to have a meaningful discussiona about it.

Second, your 'definition' of consciousness appears to be an unproven explanation of what consciousness is or what causes it. Isn't this the equivalent of starting a discussion on the issue of whether racism is ethically wrong, by defining racism as 'the morally wrong discrimination between people on the basis of race'?

Also, since the brain is a form of computer, we could, in theory replace some or all of it with non organic parts that perform the same functions/ computations, then surely it is the informational state that is important to the mental state, not what the parts are made of.
 
  • #237
Originally posted by Alexander
My definition of consciouseness is as follows. Consciouseness is active state of neurons responsible for speach (including thoughts which are just activity of speach neurons but without engaging motor neurons of throat muscles), or of neurons responsible for hearing, or of neurons responsible for vision.

Active state of vast majority of the rest neurons is what we cal "sub-consciouseness" (information processing is their responsibility, by the way - as in any other animal brain). Inactive state of first group of neurons is what we call "sleep", inactivity of almost all neurons except resonsible for basics (respiration, basic chemical balance, etc) is what we call "unconcsiousness".
Good Luck! Now all you have to do is try and stay awake and remain conscious! [zz)] [zz)]

Ever consider that there might be an entity or "a soul" that goes along with being conscious?

While I suppose it's nice to know how to put together a car, and yet the main reason we have cars is to serve as transportation.
 
Last edited:
  • #238
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Ever consider that there might be an entity or "a soul" that goes along with being conscious?
Yes, of course. The hypothesis of "soul" was discarded long ago due to lack of supporting facts.
 
  • #239
Originally posted by akhenaten

Second, your 'definition' of consciousness appears to be an unproven explanation of what consciousness is or what causes it.
What do you mean, unproven? This is what I learned in biology class in high school. It is in textbooks (chapter "Central nervous system" - about how brain works).

...Isn't this the equivalent of starting a discussion on the issue of whether racism is ethically wrong, by defining racism as 'the morally wrong discrimination between people on the basis of race'?

Exactly. You clearly see the point - once definition is there, the discussion may no longer be needed (because racizm is immoral by definition of rasizm) - and plenty of disk space can be saved for more meaningfull issues than talking about undefined objects.
 
  • #240
Originally posted by Alexander
What do you mean, unproven? This is what I learned in biology class in high school. It is in textbooks (chapter "Central nervous system" - about how brain works).


Yes, but if you were that that was 'what consciousness is' then you had a very idiosynchratic and zealous logical potivist of a teacher.

Originally posted by Alexander

Exactly. You clearly see the point - once definition is there, the discussion may no longer be needed (because racizm is immoral by definition of rasizm) - and plenty of disk space can be saved for more meaningfull issues than talking about undefined objects.

The immorality of racism is a value judgement - it would be absurd to try to discover whether it was really immoral by looking it up in a dictionary - that would only tell you how it was regarded. The definition of a word is how it is used, this is not necessarily the same as how it is, in itself.
 
  • #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?
 
  • #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:
Back
Top