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.
  • #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.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #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 [Broken]
 
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? [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #266
Don't miss these

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/humannature/sectindex.jsp?sub=Free%20will [Broken]
 
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? [Broken]

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).
 
  • #271
Originally posted by Alexander
Well, then Solar system is definitely conscious (because it evolves).


uhh... what is your reasoning here? what part does conciousness have in the evolution of a system? evolutionary process is a completely random series of event. or--- are you being sarcstic and i am so stupid i didn't see it?
 
  • #272
No, nothing sarcastic. If to relate consciouseness with evolution then we can call practically any complex enough system to be conscious - because it exibits complex behavior. A Solar system is quite complex multiple interacting system constantly changing (evolving). So does a star, a planet, and practically any multiparticle system (with number of particles beyond a few).

So, definition of consciouseness shall be much more narrow than just evolving or changing complex system.
 
  • #273
Originally posted by

"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.


A PORTION of the above is what I've been POSTING since I found the Physics Forum 6 weeks ago: that consciousness is a fundamental "substance" of the Universe...existing in EACH elementary particle -- and, collectively, in large, dynamic, coherent systems...like dogs, cats, cockroaches, humans, planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe ITSELF.

While it's great to get some SUPPORT...it's also a "bummer" realize that I've been "scooped"...as evidenced by the wealth of links you've directed us to. I'll be getting to them soon -- and also answering some of your other posts -- but for now I have a few questions re the above:

1st paragraph: say more about the "quantum eraser" and the "basic two-slit experiment" (about photons?). Also, what is a "bit channel" and what do you think Seager means by "a SEMANTIC sense of information"?

2nd paragraph: what is meant by "the principle of causal grounding"? It is clear that I ALIGN with the statement that "consciousness is a foundational feature of the world..." ...and of the Universe as well.

In fact, what I generally say is "The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts"...and, believe me, my "speculations" have been "trammelled" ...as Chalmers feared.

I think I will go searching for prior posts I've written, to save me the trouble of re-stating same. Not a ton of time to do so. Likewise your many recommended links. HOWEVER, I will get to each and every one of them... and soon.

On this rare occasion, I agree with Alexander that we need to define our terms, and so am giving due thought to a definition of "consciousness" that I can live with. Will be back with my attempt.

Meanwhile, how does one pronounce "Panpsychism"? With an long-i-sounding "y"...or short. Also, I'd prefer a hyphen, such as: pan-psychism...and may USE one whether it's accepted or not. Also, does the word always have an initial capital letter? Finally, who coined the word...and when?

Questions, question, questions...but I think I've got a few answers , too.
 
Last edited:
  • #274
Originally posted by Alexander
No, nothing sarcastic. If to relate consciouseness with evolution then we can call practically any complex enough system to be conscious - because it exibits complex behavior. A Solar system is quite complex multiple interacting system constantly changing (evolving). So does a star, a planet, and practically any multiparticle system (with number of particles beyond a few).

So, definition of consciouseness shall be much more narrow than just evolving or changing complex system.


i still don't get what you were saying. why attribute conciousness to such a complex 'evolving' system? i think i should dig up and repost my reply of page 14(?). anyways, these questions as to how such a system could occur should be thought of with the weak and strong anthropic prinsiple in mind, not a greater consious.
 
  • #275
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. B]


that's basically it. i resubmit this because a) it was overlooked before in the midst of a converstation between basically only three people and b) i think it's relevent. I'm still a little shakey on your quy's definition of conscious if not this biological process above mentioned, and i wonder how it can even be thought of being applied to an innanimate system like a star.

i need some sleep, i don't think i make a lot of sense. (at least not to myself. am i repeatative here? [zz)] [zz)] [zz)]
 
  • #276
There is a difference between computation and consciousness.
 
  • #277
Originally posted by akhenaten
There is a difference between computation and consciousness.

While processing prior posts with every intention to respond...another question :

Akhenaten "worshipped" the Sun ...not, the "son" ...so why the "crucifix" in your avatar?

Meanwhile, hope you'll answer the questions (above) I have from your first post on this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #278
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Akhenaten "worshipped" the Sun ...not, the "son" ...so why the "crucifix" in your avatar?

Ever heard the story of the blind men and the elephant? This is actually a picture of Aleister Crowley.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Meanwhile, hope you'll answer the questions (above) I have from your first post on this thread.

I'll get right to it.
 
  • #279


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
A PORTION of the above is what I've been POSTING since I found the Physics Forum 6 weeks ago: that consciousness is a fundamental "substance" of the Universe...existing in EACH elementary particle -- and, collectively, in large, dynamic, coherent systems...like dogs, cats, cockroaches, humans, planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe ITSELF.

While it's great to get some SUPPORT...it's also a "bummer" realize that I've been "scooped"...as evidenced by the wealth of links you've directed us to. I'll be getting to them soon -- and also answering some of your other posts -- but for now I have a few questions re the above:

I noticed some of your earlier posts. Panpsychism is not a new idea, its just that its only recently been taken seriously at an academic/scientific level. I had a similar experience when I read this stuff too, because it was close to, but not identical to, some ideas I already had.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

1st paragraph: say more about the "quantum eraser" and the "basic two-slit experiment" (about photons?). Also, what is a "bit channel" and what do you think Seager means by "a SEMANTIC sense of information"?

I suggest you read the original article (or at least the authors descriptions of these terms) instead of my hacked paraphrasing. A semantic sense of information means a correlation between two systems without the establishment of a 'bit stream' which is what is usually involved with 'information transfer' - an example of two systems where there was information transfer in a semantic sense would be quantum entanglement.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

2nd paragraph: what is meant by "the principle of causal grounding"? It is clear that I ALIGN with the statement that "consciousness is a foundational feature of the world..." ...and of the Universe as well.

I'm just pulling this from the article. You should refer to it yourself:
A pernicious problem of explanatory exclusion7 arises from the aligning of consciousness with functional description. Any functionally described system must be actually instantiated by some assemblage of physical parts, if it is to take any part in the workings of the world. The causal efficacy of the system depends entirely upon the causal efficacy of its physical instantiation. Thus when we say such things as 'the thermostat turned on the furnace' the efficacy of the thermostat is entirely explained by the particular physical instantiation of this thermostat (say by the physical details of its thermocouple, or whatever else let's it serve its function). Perhaps a better example would the power of water to dissolve salt: this is entirely explained by the interactions of individual H20 molecules with the NaCl molecules that constitute salt, and these interactions are in turn entirely explained by the ultimately quantum mechanical properties of hydrogen, oxygen, sodium and chlorine. There is no room for water to have any causal powers, save those grounded in its constituents. The principle of causal grounding states that the causal efficacy of any complex, whether functionally or mereologically described, is entirely dependent upon the causal efficacy of the basic constituents of its physical instantiation.


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
In fact, what I generally say is "The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts"...and, believe me, my "speculations" have been "trammelled" ...as Chalmers feared.
I think I will go searching for prior posts I've written, to save me the trouble of re-stating same. Not a ton of time to do so. Likewise your many recommended links. HOWEVER, I will get to each and every one of them... and soon.
On this rare occasion, I agree with Alexander that we need to define our terms, and so am giving due thought to a definition of "consciousness" that I can live with. Will be back with my attempt.

Alexander seems to be trying to incorporate the explanationn for consciousness into the definition. By accepting that, we will not only be accepting an assumption but the debate will be meaningless. What is it that we are seeking to explain? What about Nagel's definition - that for something to have consciousness means it is 'like something' to be that thing, in other words the thing has (or IMO is) a point of view.

The way I would explain this in terms of panpsychism is that the universe is full of information and informational perspectives, mostly of a fleeting and one-dimensional nature.


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Meanwhile, how does one pronounce "Panpsychism"? With an long-i-sounding "y"...or short. Also, I'd prefer a hyphen, such as: pan-psychism...and may USE one whether it's accepted or not. Also, does the word always have an initial capital letter? Finally, who coined the word...and when?

pan'sii'kizm AFAIK
'-psych-' just like 'psyche' or 'psychology'. But as you are American you'll probably want to pronounce it in some weird way anyway :wink: .

Some have reservations with the term, including myself, because to some it might imply, for example, that bricks think. I've also come across pan-protopsychism - the qualifier helps but it does not seem to be in common use, partly because it is a bit ungainly. Panexperientalism is another:

The word 'panpsychism' is often used to describe Whitehead's position, even though he did not use the word himself. The word can be problematic. For some, 'psyche', which usually pertains to the human mind, suggests that this position would hold that low-grade individuals like bacteria, or even electrons, are conscious. This certainly is not the case and David Ray Griffin suggests that 'pan-experientialism' is a more appropriate term. (Griffin 1988) One should not expect all of the characteristics of mentality we observe at the macro-scale to be evident at the micro-scale, just as we no longer expect the physicality to be the same at both levels. For instance, the atoms in a sponge aren't expected to be 'spongy', themselves. The word 'pan' should also not be misconstrued. Meaning 'all', it can imply that everything has some mentality, which again, is certainly not true. Things like tables, teapots, thermostats and tetraflop computers, are regarded as uncoordinated aggregates of low-grade occasions and have no mental properties in themselves. Whitehead distinguishes them from things like cells and organisms:
--Whitehead's Even More Dangerous Idea, by Peter Farleigh


Originally posted by M. Gaspar

Questions, question, questions...but I think I've got a few answers , too.

Let's hear 'em.

More links here:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online1.html#panpsychism [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #280
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"?
My answer is "yes", because consciousness expects the identical reaction on occurring events and self-improvement. We can observe this in the surrounding us world. Besides, a part of integer (the mankind) can not exceed the integer (the universe). In the any sense.
 
<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
312
Replies
4
Views
924
  • Cosmology
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top