Well, it’s arguable if that’s a bug or a feature, really.
Grin! Good point.
(Have I mentioned how much I like you?)
Don’t know whether you’re being sarcastic, deliberately missing the point or just in complete unconscious denial of certain facts.
It would help if your examples were cosmic in nature rather than minutely inappropriate and irrelevant.
You must have missed the part where I stated that only naturally-occurring mechanistic systems, because the internet didn’t just naturally occur. The sun’s surface is no more intelligent than the heart’s surface.
Is that so? Well, would you care to give an example of an intelligent consciousness entity whose consciousness is driven by a naturally-occurring mechanistic system?
That’s because I am not presenting evidence, but trying to demonstrate the fallacy of requesting a random motion by a planet as proof of the universe’s consciousness. It’s like saying that: “if a human being is conscious, demonstrate that the lungs are intelligent.” This wouldn’t do, and you know this.
:rolleyes: sigh
EDIT:
Is that so? Well, would you care to give an example of an intelligent consciousness entity whose consciousness is not driven by a naturally-occurring mechanistic system?
Okay, fair enough; I shouldn’t have mentioned the internet.
(However, the internet processes a lot more information than the sun’s surface does. The sun’s surface can be modeled in a fairly large computer program; the internet cannot be modeled.)
You added the word “not” in a later edit.
And…of course I can’t. No one here knows of any. Many of us believe that Artificial Intelligence is possible, but we all admit it is far, far from demonstrated today. Maybe in a hundred years. Or maybe never.
But… So what? What’s your point? Yes, as far as we know, consciousness only exists in earth life, and arose naturally and mechanistically. That falls vastly short of demonstrating that “the universe is conscious,” which is what I understood you to be claiming.
A few species of animals on earth are conscious. The universe? There is no evidence that it is conscious. If you think it is, you need to show us something convincing.
I apologize for not getting what you’re driving at. Your ideas may seem very clear to you, but to most of us, your point is still completely foggy.
ETA: my comment that I liked Der Trihs wasn’t a snark at you in any way; I was simply applauding him for making a good quip, specifically about internet hentai. It had nothing to do with you, and so your rolleyes was ill-conceived.
I believe that God exists because we do. Our lives, our existence, is just amazing enough, unreal enough, rich and varied in its possibilities…that if God really DID create the world, and we could somehow know this for sure, that almost everyone would think “makes sense, I had a feeling that a universe this wonderful and large would have a Creator,” or at least “you know, that’s somewhat reasonable.”
The question: Is it possible for a question to be asked that does not have an answer? If the answer is yes, how do we know whether this isn’t one of the questions? If the answer is no, then all questions have answers, and the right answer to this question is no.
So if the question of whether God exists is one of the questions that can be asked that doesn’t have an answer, then the question of whether God exists doesn’t have an answer. If the answer is no, then God either exists or God doesn’t exist.
So not only might we be unable to know whether God exists or not, the question itself might not have answer.
The point is that you’re currently living inside an enormous naturally-occurring mechanistic system, whose internal organs you observe on a daily basis, in motion and ever-active.
This active and naturally-occurring mechanistic system of the cosmos should have taught you something about the conscious nature of the universe; but of course, if you choose to ignore that your consciousness is caused by a mechanistic system, then that’s fine by me; just don’t ask me to provide evidence for your consciousness by demonstrating that, for instance, your respiratory system has a life of its own and it is intelligent.
If your consciousness can be proved by demonstrating that your internal organs have a life and consciousness of their own, independent of your consciousness, then perhaps it is you who should show me just how your organs are able to do this.
You keep doing this.
We humans, concious beings, are on an even deeper level made out of atoms.
You know what else is made up of atoms? Rocks! Ergo Rocks are conscious.
The fact that the Universe is mechanistic is absolutely no indication that there is a bigger ‘organism’ that is conscious.
You have, as yet, given us no reason at all to assume such a thing.
Nothing but some picture of a part of a galaxy vaguely resembles a brain cell.
No, rocks aren’t conscious, because they aren’t assembled in a naturally-occurring active mechanistic system that works just like the internal human anatomy.
No, rocks aren’t conscious, because they aren’t assembled in a naturally-occurring active mechanistic system that works just like the internal human anatomy.
And you guys keep doing this: that is, give comparisons/analogies that are inappropriate.
Just responding in kind.
No, things aren’t conscious because they are assembled in a naturally-occurring active mechanistic system
Conscious entities are made up of naturally-occurring active mechanistic systems.
That doesn’t mean any naturally-occurring active mechanistic system is therefore conscious.
You have failed to move us past a level of "Dude, what if.. ".
There is totally no indication that our little musing about a conscious universe should be taken any more serious than that.
Unless of course you provide some reason we might take it up one notch, to Woo Level.
It isn’t just like internal human anatomy. In fact, it is nothing like human anatomy.
If you accept the concept without any evidence, what on Earth don’t you accept? Vampires? Succubi? Transformers? Is Megatron a real danger?
As a “common sense” or “first impression” or “naive” observation, sure, it makes sense. It made sense to primitive humans, and to humans in early civilizations.
The trouble starts when you get up to the scientific era, where ideas are required to be supported by evidence.
This is why we have relativity and quantum theory: they don’t make a damn lick of sense to our naive perceptions…but they are bolstered by tons and tons of evidence.
As far as the evidence shows, the universe is so incredibly rich an environment, flooded with energies, that life, and even consciousness, arose out of a mechanistic process.
It is all about evidence; this is what is killing thepillar’s claims.
Kurt Goedel showed that, yes, there are questions that don’t have answers. In a more simplistic sense, ordinary linguistic paradoxes don’t have answers…in a sense. Does the barber who cuts the hair of everyone who doesn’t cut their own hair cut his own hair? Yes means no, and no means yes. You can only address the question by reverting to a metalevel of truth: there isn’t actually any such barber, so the question is simply moot.
There is a brand of agnostic who holds that the question cannot be answered. Most agnostics simply say that, yes, there is an answer…we just don’t know it.
You’re being nasty again; can you address this kind of issue without accusing others of misconduct? I don’t “choose to ignore” anything. You haven’t made yourself clear, and I’m asking you to explain your beliefs. Yes, I do ask you to provide evidence for what you’re saying. Without evidence, your opinions are of no value.
You just added a whole new term! “…That works just like the internal human anatomy.” Does the universe “work just like the internal human anatomy?” You have shown us one photograph of a neuron, which resembled a distant nebula to some degree. That falls short of any demonstration that clusters of nebula work like clusters of neurons.
I can show you a picture of a rock that looks a lot like an eagle. I don’t expect it to fly.
You’re making a lot of statements…and not backing them up. And “You choose to ignore me” is not backing them up. If I’d chosen to ignore you…
Once a man has thought about all 26 letters, God will wind down the universe.
Underlining added. This is why I asked for clarification. I am trying to understand thepillar’s premise. If thepillar is going to mangle something understood in such a way, it is important that I understand just what he is thinking in order to attempt to decypher other manglings he makes later. Understanding this statement is a key to trying to decypher other comments. Thus the need for thepillar to respond, not have you interpret for him. 
Agreed with clarification. The gold standard for recognizing intelligent action and therefore consciousness is human behavior. Underlining for emphasis, because you appear to be making further arguments by analogy to human structure. Yet you then complain when we make the same kind of analogy. Such as when you said:
So which is it? Can we make analogies to human beings or not?
Okay, I think you are using a hypothetical to explore an analogy, but I want to be clear here, so please be precise. Do you believe that germs are conscious, or is this just a presupposition to explore the analogy?
I agree with you that consciousness arises from naturally occurring and properly functioning mechanistic hardware, i.e. the brain. I don’t believe in a transcendental soul or spirit, so accept that our notion of consciousness arises from the physical structure and function of the brain. Here is the problem. You are looking at a necessary condition and confusing it with a sufficient condition.
A necessary condition is something that is required for something else, but does not in itself cause that thing to happen. For instance, a necessary condition for one to be in a car accident is for there to be a car. But just being in a car or even driving a car is not sufficient to cause a car accident - as millions of drivers can attest to daily.
A sufficient condition is something that by itself tells you the status of something else. A sufficient condition for being a father is having a son. If a man has a son, he is a father, but a man can also have only a daughter and still be a father.
In your argument, you are seeing that the human body has consciousness, and the human body is made up of other structure that have motion and energy. Structures that have motion and energy are necessary, but not sufficient, to prove consciousness.
False. Or at least, not completely true. The human body stops, that removes the necessary condition of a functioning human body, so we can state that there is no longer an intelligent conscious entity. But there are other states where the existence of an intelligent conscious entity is not present even though some of that hardware is still functioning. For instance, brain death. Scoop out the gray matter but leave the brainstem intact and insert a feeding tube. The body will continue to function, but there isn’t a consciousness there.
Okay, so you are saying that my proposed type of evidence doesn’t fit the situation. But you asked me for an example of what I would recognize as proof of the universe being conscious. I gave you an example. Okay, so you don’t like my example. Well, that’s the problem - you poorly defined your premise, so I didn’t know the constraints. Now you tell me that you mean the universe as a whole, and so looking at parts within it isn’t appropriate. Well, I didn’t know that.
Let’s step back. My answer for what would constitute evidence - I want some sign the universe as a whole demonstrates intelligent action. I will accept some form of overt communication. Overt communication means it must be a two-way communication. I can have overt communication with a pet dog, for example, even though he does not speak English, because I can say “bring me the ball” and he will go get the ball and bring it to me in response. And he will get the ball, and not the stick or the shoe or the newspaper.
Where is the universe’s overt communication?
Necessary, but not sufficient. The Sun emits energy. Hell, a rock emits energy (thermal energy that it accumulates from the environment).
No, it is you that is missing the point. You keep failing to give sufficient conditions to show the universe is conscious. At most you are providing necessary conditions.
We’re not limited to your analogy, we can make up others to show our point. Try to follow along.
Well then, get to the point where you present some evidence. Because that’s what we’ve been asking you for from the get go, and you haven’t produced any yet. Just vague analogies and rejections of our attempts to clarify what you mean.
But a tree is an active mechanistic system. Is a tree conscious?
Actually, this can be resolved with a simple *and. *There is nothing that precludes the barber from cutting his own hair, you just can’t answer that question with the information given.
Fine and fair and okay and all. I was just trying to bend over backward to be fair to him. I thought the rejection of his idea was a little too strict.
I think you win the thread! That is a very cogent summation of what our correspondent appears to be doing.
That’s at least more user-friendly than writing down the 9 billion names of God.
What things are conscious?