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.
  • #141
Mentat...

Consciousness may be on a continuum.

A totally chaotic Universe --without any coherent CHUNKS of consciousness as we (and other species, terrestrial or not) "possess" -- would have nothing but "scattered throughts" as opposed to FOCUSED ones.

I speculate that consciousness accretes light "matter" via corresponding forces.

The consciousness of the Universe might be directly proportional to the quantity (and quality?) of the complex and dynamic coherent systems (like atoms, humans, galaxies) operating "within" It.

That's why It might "bother" to create human consciousness.

Howevever, I don't see this (our evolution out of the mud) as "decision" made by the Universe, but rather a NATURAL PRODUCT of the NATURAL FUNCTIONS of Its NATURAL SYSTEMS.

I know we're having this conversation elsewhere (and not getting very far with it), but I'll say it again: the Universe TENDS TOWARD COHERENCY. Thus, elementary particles -- as soon as they could -- formed ATOMS...dynamic coherent systems that, in turn, came together to form elements, and, well, you know the rest.

Here's a quote I read today by Rupert Sheldrake, a crackpot by your standards, but OK by me:

"The big bang theory describes the origin of the universe as a small, undifferentiated, primal unity. The universe then expands and grows, and new forms and structures appear within it. This is more like a developing organism than like a machine...the whole cosmos is in creative evolution. So, if the whole universe is alive, if the universe is like a great organism, then everything within it is best understood as organisms rather than machines."

It is probably impossible to imagine -- let alone detect, measure or prove -- the consciousness of an atom, a star or a galaxy -- but I think the subject is worth CONSIDERING.

Since consciousness does SEEM to "exist" "within" the Universe (as with yours and mine), then I think any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an incomplete theory.

But here's my current inquiry: Does anyone EVER "reverse polarity" on their paradigms (i.e., change their minds on their positions) or are we each, somehow, predisposed to think mechanistically vs. "organically" from birth...or do our ideas "set up" like concrete somewhere along the way?

Are we the ying/yang of philosophy that must BOTH exists to get to the "ultimate truth"?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #142
Heusdens...

"Matter" -- and I usually put the word in quotes to keep forefront the awareness that "matter" is "bound-up ENERGY" -- is made possible by the NATURAL FUNCTION of the Universe to COMBINE It's NATURAL INGREDIENTS (elementary particles) in a variety of ways. Without the "ingredient" of elementary particles (which were, no doubt (ha ha) "contained" in some form -- ENERGY -- in the primal singularity), matter as we know it would not exist. That's why we call them the "building blocks" of matter.

Does this mean that we (or anyone, including the Universe) would "know" specifically what this stuff was going to form?! No.

A molecule of air does not predict a huricane. So what. My point is that the huricane is COMPRISED OF THE MOLECULE OF AIR.

"Nothing comes from nothing" is my contention (and I'm sure we can kick that around, too). Still, based on this contention -- which, by the way, is as "provable" as "Everything comes from Nothing", hence, just as VALID! -- I maintain that consciousness existed in a compressed state, like everything else, in the Primal Singularity.

And, when the Primal Singularity BLEW...consciousness, like Everything Else, fragmented out...then proceded to ACCRETE, like "matter", into dynamic and coherent chunks of consciousness.

Prove it didn't.
 
Last edited:
  • #143
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Ah, so in conclusion, the universe itself is not conscious, but some inhabitants are conscious.
Is it more correct(is that grammatically correct? please answer this question... ) to say that the inhabitants of the universe are alive and conscious, taking into consideration artificial intelligence?

I don't understand the question (though it is grammatically correct). Yes, some inhabitants (note: not "all inhabitants") of the universe are conscious.
 
  • #144


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Consciousness may be on a continuum.

A totally chaotic Universe --without any coherent CHUNKS of consciousness as we (and other species, terrestrial or not) "possess" -- would have nothing but "scattered throughts" as opposed to FOCUSED ones.

I speculate that consciousness accretes light "matter" via corresponding forces.



I don't understand the last (quoted) sentence. However, as far as the idea of having "scattered thoughts", because of the matters' being scattered, I disagree. Unless all pieces of matter are thoughts (in which case my brain should get significantly bigger, every time I think), thoughts cannot be scattered throughout the universe, as you imply.
 
  • #145
Mentat...

What I'm saying is that consciousness -- like "matter" -- in order to function as something "useful", needs to "come together" into dynamic, coherent systems (like atoms, which clump together into even more complex dynamic, coherent systems, which, again, do the same).

If the Universe did not have this propensity (natural forces and ingredients) to bring its diffuse substances together, the Universe would be a pointless, structureless soup.

Likewise with consciousness: If my speculation is correct and there are quanta of consciousness which were diffused at the moment after the Big Bang, then it would be through natural FORCES THAT IMPACT CONSCIOUSNESS (corresponding to gravity) that these quanta would come together to form coherent systems of thought.

Another important point is this: that consciousness -- yours and mine -- are NOT confined to our brains, but, in fact, are part of a larger dynamic, coherent system that includes, well, probably EVERYTHING ELSE!

By the way, I'm not satisfied with the word "useful" above...but I can't seem to come up with right word now. Maybe YOU can suggest another.

Meanwhile, Mentat, why would you say so DEFINITIVELY to MajinVegeta that not all inhabitants of the Universe are conscious? You don't know that any more than I know that they are.
 
Last edited:
  • #146


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Consciousness may be on a continuum.

A totally chaotic Universe --without any coherent CHUNKS of consciousness as we (and other species, terrestrial or not) "possess" -- would have nothing but "scattered throughts" as opposed to FOCUSED ones.


When you say "scattered thoughts", do you mean subconscious thoughts? does "focused" refer to conscious thoughts?

I speculate that consciousness accretes light "matter" via corresponding forces.
Well, they are related (in the sense that there are hypothetical(?) particles called biophotons that are emitted...)

The consciousness of the Universe might be directly proportional to the quantity (and quality?) of the complex and dynamic coherent systems (like atoms, humans, galaxies) operating "within" It.
The universe is not conscious. Some inhabitants are. The universe is probably inanimate. What makes it seem like an organism? I believe this calls for an analysis of the definition of life itself. Even if we reach a conclusion, the conclusion may only be the criteria used to identify earthly life.

That's why It might "bother" to create human consciousness.
To create human consciousness in an android?

Howevever, I don't see this (our evolution out of the mud) as "decision" made by the Universe, but rather a NATURAL PRODUCT of the NATURAL FUNCTIONS of Its NATURAL SYSTEMS.
what do you mean? The universe is conscious because of its inhabitant
particles and stuff?

I know we're having this conversation elsewhere (and not getting very far with it), but I'll say it again: the Universe TENDS TOWARD COHERENCY. Thus, elementary particles -- as soon as they could -- formed ATOMS...dynamic coherent systems that, in turn, came together to form elements, and, well, you know the rest.
Oh, I see what you're saying! (an ingenious postulate!) That's an excellent idea! Maybe the universe could be an early organism, in yet another universe! cool! but its really out there...

Here's a quote I read today by Rupert Sheldrake, a crackpot by your standards, but OK by me:

"The big bang theory describes the origin of the universe as a small, undifferentiated, primal unity. The universe then expands and grows, and new forms and structures appear within it. This is more like a developing organism than like a machine...the whole cosmos is in creative evolution. So, if the whole universe is alive, if the universe is like a great organism, then everything within it is best understood as organisms rather than machines."


Although I applaud the whole idea, it is utterly unsubstantiated. As I said before, defining life universally (i.e., an absolute definition of life) calls for all the possible ways life can exist. One definition of life that applies to every single living thing is hereditary material. If something has hereditary material, it could very well be alive. How do you define life?

Are we the ying/yang of philosophy that must BOTH exists to get to the "ultimate truth"?

That implies we are the only living things in the universe. Although there is no evidence of extraterrestrials, the universe is enormous. The universe is to us, as the atom is to a quark. There could be aliens out there, somewhere (for all we know, they could exist in one of the many infinite parallel universes, where genetic mutations caused the humans to turn into aliens! ).
 
  • #147


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Meanwhile, Mentat, why would you say so DEFINITIVELY to MajinVegeta that not all inhabitants of the Universe are conscious? You don't know that any more than I know that they are. [/B]

I believe its because its true. On Earth (which is in the universe), there are subconscious beings. He can be sure of that since its already proven, and this could mean that there are subconscious beings out there too. Can something unconscious, unsubconscious be considered alive?
 
  • #148


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What I'm saying is that consciousness -- like "matter" -- in order to function as something "useful", needs to "come together" into dynamic, coherent systems (like atoms, which clump together into even more complex dynamic, coherent systems, which, again, do the same).

If the Universe did not have this propensity (natural forces and ingredients) to bring its diffuse substances together, the Universe would be a pointless, structureless soup.

Likewise with consciousness: If my speculation is correct and there are quanta of consciousness which were diffused at the moment after the Big Bang, then it would be through natural FORCES THAT IMPACT CONSCIOUSNESS (corresponding to gravity) that these quanta would come together to form coherent systems of thought.

Another important point is this: that consciousness -- yours and mine -- are NOT confined to our brains, but, in fact, are part of a larger dynamic, coherent system that includes, well, probably EVERYTHING ELSE!

By the way, I'm not satisfied with the word "useful" above...but I can't seem to come up with right word now. Maybe YOU can suggest another.

Meanwhile, Mentat, why would you say so DEFINITIVELY to MajinVegeta that not all inhabitants of the Universe are conscious? You don't know that any more than I know that they are.

If consciousness clumps together, as you imply. Then why are grizzly bears and blue whales less conscious/intelligent than I am?

Actually, I do know that. I have presented my reasoning.
 
  • #149


Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I believe its because its true. On Earth (which is in the universe), there are subconscious beings. He can be sure of that since its already proven, and this could mean that there are subconscious beings out there too. Can something unconscious, unsubconscious be considered alive?

It can be considered alive (just take a rock for example), but obviously not conscious. And the thread is about a "conscious universe".
 
  • #150
Where to begin...?

Mentat...re last post to MajinVegeta: that rocks may have "rock consciousness" is part and parcel of the discussion of whether the Universe Itself is conscious.

Mentat..(God: I wish I could lift quotes like the rest of you. Can't find how on faq.)...anyhoo...in your "grizzly bear" response to me:

Let's say that an evolving system of "accreting quanta of consciousness" "found a home" a long time ago in an evolving system of matter, like, say, and early fish.

First, I need you to envision this "evolving system of accreting quanta of consciousness" as "looking like" a diagram of the orbit of an electron. This means, a circle with a glob on one place on it. The glob is the consciousness of the fish. The rest of the circle is the EXTENDED consciousness of the fish.

Within the fish brain, there is only so much capacity to process stimuli, remember, learn, etc...thereby a fish is only able to contribute to a limited degree to the evolution of its own consciousness. Nonetheless, it probably learns and remembers a few things and, in doing so, its consciousness evolves by that much.

Thus, the glob AND the circle it is on (remember the DIAGRAM...not a real object) -- or, in other words, the fish consciousness and its extended consciousness -- evolves a bit by the time its "host" dies.

Bear with me, Mentat...it gets grizzly...

Now, this dynamic, coherent system (the glob and its circle) has accreted more quanta of consciousness and now "goes shopping" for another host. (Actually, I speculate that natural forces of affinity attract a system of consciousness into its next host..for the function of, hopefully, accreting more consciousness...i.e., evolving.)

Be that as it may (or may not): eons pass. the glob has long since graduated from fishdom, progressing upward through the "consciousness food chain" to the grizzly bear! It's still a glob, only more complex, processing info in a bear-like fashion, and proceeding to evolve.

However, the physical system of the bear brain does not allow for the complexity of thought that say, you or I, may enjoy and employ. When the bear dies, its consciousness (glob and circle) will seek another "fit".

Our consciousness has evolved from monkey consciousness. Size per se is not a factor. Processing capacity is. Now, I have no idea what the consciousness of a whale is like (they may be processing/accreting a lot more than we think) but if indeed they are "less conscious than we are" its because of the complexity thing.

I am happy to have found this Forum because, apparently, I am COMPLETELY UNABLE to COMMUNICATE my own SPECULATIONS!
Thus, I welcome minds like yours and Heusdens that call me to task.

Please do so again at your earliest convenience.
 
Last edited:
  • #151
MajinVegeta...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonetheless, I will persist.

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

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

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

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

If that ain't livin', I don't know what is! And neither do you. :wink:
 
  • #152
Mentat..(God: I wish I could lift quotes like the rest of you. Can't find how on faq.)

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

side note: if you want something bold, for example, just write [b(don't want to bold anything here, so I had only one braket)
before the word(s) and [/b] at the end of what you're "bolding" :wink:
 
  • #153


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonetheless, I will persist.

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

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

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

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

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

heh, when you put it that way, you do have a point. How do you apply theoretical physics to this?
Mentat said that the rocks could be considered alive. The universe isn't conscious, I don't believe, but it is alive. I rest my case for the time being, unitl some good argument pops up.
 
  • #154
MajinVegeta...

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, thanks for the technical info. Will try it when I'm feeling COURAGEOUS.
 
  • #155
Mentat...

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

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

Please "see" the "circle" as a "dynamic electric charge" or something. Honestly, I'm at a loss...but don't write me off just yet.
 
  • #156


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Mentat...re last post to MajinVegeta: that rocks may have "rock consciousness" is part and parcel of the discussion of whether the Universe Itself is conscious.

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

Let's say that an evolving system of "accreting quanta of consciousness" "found a home" a long time ago in an evolving system of matter, like, say, and early fish.

First, I need you to envision this "evolving system of accreting quanta of consciousness" as "looking like" a diagram of the orbit of an electron. This means, a circle with a glob on one place on it. The glob is the consciousness of the fish. The rest of the circle is the EXTENDED consciousness of the fish.

Within the fish brain, there is only so much capacity to process stimuli, remember, learn, etc...thereby a fish is only able to contribute to a limited degree to the evolution of its own consciousness. Nonetheless, it probably learns and remembers a few things and, in doing so, its consciousness evolves by that much.

Thus, the glob AND the circle it is on (remember the DIAGRAM...not a real object) -- or, in other words, the fish consciousness and its extended consciousness -- evolves a bit by the time its "host" dies.

Bear with me, Mentat...it gets grizzly...

Now, this dynamic, coherent system (the glob and its circle) has accreted more quanta of consciousness and now "goes shopping" for another host. (Actually, I speculate that natural forces of affinity attract a system of consciousness into its next host..for the function of, hopefully, accreting more consciousness...i.e., evolving.)

Be that as it may (or may not): eons pass. the glob has long since graduated from fishdom, progressing upward through the "consciousness food chain" to the grizzly bear! It's still a glob, only more complex, processing info in a bear-like fashion, and proceeding to evolve.

However, the physical system of the bear brain does not allow for the complexity of thought that say, you or I, may enjoy and employ. When the bear dies, its consciousness (glob and circle) will seek another "fit".

Our consciousness has evolved from monkey consciousness. Size per se is not a factor. Processing capacity is. Now, I have no idea what the consciousness of a whale is like (they may be processing/accreting a lot more than we think) but if indeed they are "less conscious than we are" its because of the complexity thing.

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

I am happy to have found this Forum because, apparently, I am COMPLETELY UNABLE to COMMUNICATE my own SPECULATIONS!
Thus, I welcome minds like yours and Heusdens that call me to task.

Please do so again at your earliest convenience.

This is an admirable quality, that you appreciate my counter-arguments, and use them to refine the way that you describe things. If only others could show such humility.
 
  • #157


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonetheless, I will persist.

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

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

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

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

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

The universe is not responsive to it's parts! It's parts are responsive to each other - and in a highly chaotic manner, mind you.
 
  • #158


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

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

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

OK. And yet, I don't see how you can think that the quantum of consciousness can only be passed on when an organism dies.
 
  • #159
Mentat...

I CANNOT AS YET CAPTURE QUOTES!

I did what MajinVegeta said THREE DIFFERENT WAYS.

First, I hit the "quote" button above
and a window opens up
on the upper lefthand corner that allows me to type in words...but THAT can't be it. I can't believe everyone RETYPES those extended quotes.

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

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

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

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

Was I supposed to have been BORN with this knowledge?

Meanwhile, Mentat... what do YOU mean when YOU say "quantum of consciousness"?
 
  • #160
Okay, detailed steps:

If you wish to seperately quote portions of a quote, press the "quote" button on each corner of the post. Then,
Put "
" right before what you want to quote. then, put /quote (with brackets before and after /quote) at the very end of what you wish to quote.
example:
yadda yadda bla bla [/quote

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

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



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

At the end of the part you want to quote, type "
". Remember that it always has to have brackets. the "/" indicates something like "until here" in html.

Meanwhile, I know how to work with the fonts but I don't have a clue what the boxes under those buttons do
What buttons are you referring to ?
 
  • #161
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Okay, detailed steps:

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

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

At the end of the part you want to quote, type "
". Remember that it always has to have brackets. the "/" indicates something like "until here" in html.


What buttons are you referring to ?
[/QUOTE]
 
  • #162
As you see above MV...

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

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

Wasting postings on this thread -- and boring others emmensely -- is probably not what I should be doing. Shall we waste two more on this, or not?
 
  • #163
Mentat...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, please respond to my question: what do YOU mean when you use the term "quantum of consciousness"?
 
  • #164
Forgive my not having been able to answer before. I only get on-line for one hour per day, so I probably got off-line before you (M. Gaspar) ever posted those last couple of posts.

Anyway, M. Gaspar, look at the bottom-right part of this post. Look for the icon that says "quote". If you click on that, you will have captured everything that I say in this post, within a "quote box". Also, if you type the following: quote (withing brackets) and /quote (also within brackets), then whatever you type in between them will appear in a quote box.
 
  • #165


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean the hypothetical quantum that you have spoken of in your illustration. I don't believe that it exists, but I'm asking you questions about "it" to see if it's even a reasonable idea.
 
  • #166


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



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




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



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

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

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



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


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

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



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

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

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

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

Better post this before I get disconnected AGAIN.
 
Last edited:
  • #167
OH MY GOD...

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

Apparently, you're right: some systems ARE disorderly!
 
Last edited:
  • #168


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

Apparently, you're right: some systems ARE disorderly!
Gaspar just above the reply botton there is a "quote" button.
Just push on it ... a new frame opens containing the message of the other ... and start typing. ;-)

If you want to react on specific sentences just copy the whole message of the other, paste it into that frame and delete the sentence you don't need.
 
Last edited:
  • #169


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

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

Now I will see if your quote looks different from my response.
 
  • #170
Pelastration...

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

I know I'm a crackpot...but a dunderhead, too?
 
  • #171


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


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

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

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

However, if these little quanta of consciousness have any mass, then the more massive something is, the more aware it should be. However, this is not the case.
 
  • #172
Mentat...

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

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

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

The more neurons, the better. And yet, an increase in what we we learn or remember or think does NOT increase the MASS of our brain. It's the PROCESS that's important...how the brain is set up to work.
 
  • #173


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

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

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

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

Like I explained in the thread 'Everything came from nothing' we have to describe a high level property of matter and material forms, like consciousness on a specific level. We are aware we think with our brain, and our consciouss being is based on the material properties of our brain. Yet it is not much use to describe such high order phenomena as consciousness, in terms of the matter that forms the brain.
Large huuricanes also consists of moving air molecules. But the property of a hurricane can not be found just by stuyding the properties of individual air molecules. Without other knowledge, like that the flow of air is caused by differences of pressure in the atmosphere, and that these differences in air pressure are caused by heating and cooling of air, we would not be able to explain hurricanes.
 
  • #174


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

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

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

Better post this before I get disconnected AGAIN.

Our minds have formulated clear and distinct categories for phenomena. Like we know about life and about death, and that they are opposites. Using Aristotelian logic, something which is dead can not be life, and vice versa.
In reality though we don't see this clear distinction. It's lifeless matter that changes and become living matter in the course of time. Consciousness, as the highest order of order in material, costed more as 3 billion years to form. Now where did all of a sudden consciousness arise our of no-consciousness? This distinct line, seperating the two, in reality doesn't exist, what we see is continuous, and gradual steps, small changes, that contribute in the larger framework to large changes. We see quantity turn into quality.
 
  • #175


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

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

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

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

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

Exactly! That's why the universe can't be conscious; it has to be "set up to work" that way, and it's not.
 
<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
278
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
916
  • Cosmology
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top