- #141
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
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"?
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"?