Possibility of a Conscious Universe: Proving Life and Awareness

In summary, the conversation discusses the idea of whether the universe is conscious and alive. The definition of life and consciousness is debated, with some arguing that it only applies to living organisms. However, others believe that even elementary particles possess consciousness and that the universe as a whole is conscious. Ultimately, the concept of synergy is brought up, highlighting the unique properties that arise when multiple things come together. The term "Quantum Decoherence" is mentioned as a way to understand the universe's tendency towards coherence and organization.
  • #211


Originally posted by pelastration

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

...that's why they're so thin !
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #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 [Broken]
 
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 [Broken]

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 [Broken]
God Is the Machine
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/
http://mattersofconsequence.com/cmtu3htm.html [Broken]
http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Tucson/4.htm [Broken]
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online3.html#neuroscience [Broken]
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/Pen-Ham/Funda-Mentality/Fundamentality.htm [Broken]
 
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 [Broken]
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?
 
<h2>1. What is the concept of a conscious universe?</h2><p>The concept of a conscious universe suggests that the universe itself is conscious and aware, rather than just being a collection of unconscious matter. This idea proposes that the universe has a purpose and that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of it.</p><h2>2. How is the possibility of a conscious universe being studied?</h2><p>The study of a conscious universe is a complex and ongoing process. Scientists are exploring various theories and conducting experiments to understand the nature and potential of consciousness in the universe. Some approaches include studying the brain, quantum mechanics, and the concept of panpsychism.</p><h2>3. What evidence supports the idea of a conscious universe?</h2><p>While there is no definitive evidence yet, some scientists argue that certain phenomena, such as the observer effect in quantum mechanics, suggest the presence of consciousness in the universe. Additionally, the complexity and order of the universe may also be seen as evidence of a conscious design.</p><h2>4. What are the potential implications of a conscious universe?</h2><p>If proven, the concept of a conscious universe could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could also impact our understanding of consciousness and its role in the universe, potentially leading to new scientific and philosophical discoveries.</p><h2>5. Is there a consensus among scientists about the possibility of a conscious universe?</h2><p>There is currently no consensus among scientists about the concept of a conscious universe. Some argue that it is a valid and promising theory, while others remain skeptical and believe that more evidence is needed to support it. As research and understanding continue to evolve, we may gain a better understanding of the possibility of a conscious universe.</p>

1. What is the concept of a conscious universe?

The concept of a conscious universe suggests that the universe itself is conscious and aware, rather than just being a collection of unconscious matter. This idea proposes that the universe has a purpose and that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of it.

2. How is the possibility of a conscious universe being studied?

The study of a conscious universe is a complex and ongoing process. Scientists are exploring various theories and conducting experiments to understand the nature and potential of consciousness in the universe. Some approaches include studying the brain, quantum mechanics, and the concept of panpsychism.

3. What evidence supports the idea of a conscious universe?

While there is no definitive evidence yet, some scientists argue that certain phenomena, such as the observer effect in quantum mechanics, suggest the presence of consciousness in the universe. Additionally, the complexity and order of the universe may also be seen as evidence of a conscious design.

4. What are the potential implications of a conscious universe?

If proven, the concept of a conscious universe could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could also impact our understanding of consciousness and its role in the universe, potentially leading to new scientific and philosophical discoveries.

5. Is there a consensus among scientists about the possibility of a conscious universe?

There is currently no consensus among scientists about the concept of a conscious universe. Some argue that it is a valid and promising theory, while others remain skeptical and believe that more evidence is needed to support it. As research and understanding continue to evolve, we may gain a better understanding of the possibility of a conscious universe.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
311
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
924
  • Cosmology
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top