Something like that.
How does the universe “have an idea?” What kind of “mind” does the universe have? What structure does the universe use for memory? How does it store the information? How does the universe communicate internally? What network does it use to convey thoughts from the memory to the part that actively integrates ideas?
We have rough answers, at least, to all of these questions about the one structure in the entire universe that we know has ideas: the brain. But none of these questions can be answered for “the universe.”
Does the universe have emotions?
It looks like you’re just reinventing religion:
Universal conscience = God = Buddhist enlightenment.
Concentrating on the letter A = praying = chanting “Om”.
All of them–God/universal conscience/cosmic enlightenment–are presumed to be de facto forces of “good” without any actual knowledge of them. They make nice stories, but they don’t reflect the reality of our existence as we experience it. Sometimes that reality can be harsh which, first, contradicts the inherent goodness of a potential universal force, and second, is why we invent the kinder, gentler alternate realities of religion, IMO.
Unless you can demonstrate, as you’ve been asked, the validity of your “law of ideas” or “universal conscience” (and so far, you haven’t), your idea isn’t any more valid than any religion, and won’t get much support.
Not really.
But I haven’t even gotten to the part where I account for the existence, and to a certain extent, necessity for evil.
It seems everybody is looking for a demonstration,and that’s perfectly understandable, but would you first care to share with me your ideas for the sort of demonstration that you had in mind so I can present it in a manner that you deem plausible?
Maybe Nanci Danison’s description of her NDE might help.
You are describing religion, and unsubstantiated NDE stories are evidence of nothing.
To increase corporate profits.
It doesn’t help. It reads like a bad Harlequin Romance novel. How is it any more convincing (of anything) than any written account of a dream?
You know, it would be helpful if you gave some information in your replies instead of keeping us dangling and needlessly drawing this out with vague answers. Why not really? How something like that?
You mean there’s still more to this? We’re on the fourth page of this thread. How have you not gotten to it yet? This is getting a bit tiresome.
Your “law of ideas” is flawed for fundamental reasons, not because of its presentation. Unless you can change physics, there’s no way it’ll be plausible.
I’m not sure which of my statements this is in response to, but nevertheless, this is a nonsequitur. The fact that some structure of the universe resembles in layout the structure of a brain cell only speaks to the fact that many structures in nature resemble each other. I could, for example, point out that those structures resemble a major city at night, with all the streets lined with lights. That would hardly indicate that the city itself has consciousness.
Regardless, this superficial similarity of layout does not address the question of how the universe itself manifests consciousness. To take that image at face value and assume consciousness manifests in the universe, then what that comparison shows is that consciousness is seated in each individual brain cell, and so a human being is not one identity, but millions of identities clamoring to get out.
And that is assuming we can trust a site called “icanhascheezbuger”. :dubious:
No, you’re making up a “universal law of ideas” and then asserting that it applies to natural phenomena.
Well, admittedly this is a very challenging request, because the nature of consciousness itself is poorly understood. We do not really know what causes it, or what it is, and have no means of objectively measuring it. Our only experience with it comes from our own, personal, firsthand experience of thinking and being, coupled with indirect experience of dealing with other humans that we assume have the same kinds of experiences, and whatever words on the topic we have gleaned from the thoughts of our predecessors.
It’s challenging enough talking about consciousness with other humans, where at least we’ve situated the site of thought to the brain, and have some objective correlations with physical manifestations. We have a real hard time extending the idea to other animals (such as dolphins and higher apes), where it is debated just how much real language interaction is occurring and how much is other kinds of conditioned responses. And the whole idea of Artificial Intelligence in the computer world definitely shows how remarkably muddled the concept is.
So trying to postulate how to prove something as grand as the cosmos demonstrates consciousness is certainly a strain on our reasoning.
And part of the problem is asking us what evidence we would accept for a premise that you’ve created and we aren’t sure we understand what you are trying to state.
A: “I have something in this bag.”
B: “Prove it.”
A: “Well, what would you accept as proof?”
B: "Pull it out? Open the bag and let me look inside? Describe the object in detail and I’ll copare it to other objects I know about and see if it sounds reasonable?’
So far, we’ve been trying the “describe the object in detail” method, and all we’ve been able to come up with is a description that does not sound like an object. So we’re not convinced.
So, can you “open the bag”?
Maybe the evidence we would accept is impossible, because the universe just doesn’t work that way. In other words, you’re wrong. If you were right, the universe would work differently, so the consciousness would be demonstrable in how the universe itself functions.
For example, a planet demonstrating “whimsy”, and deciding it doesn’t want to continue orbiting the same direction, but would like to take the “scenic route”, and suddenly detouring for no explicable reason into a path out of the plane of the ecliptic. That would be a demonstration of the universe having consciousness, and making a decision not constrained by direct physical mechanisms.
And how are we supposed to know what* you mean* when you propose the universe has consciousness? How are we to define the limits of your proposed parallels? You propose the universe itself manifests consciousness, well, the only example we have to compare to comes with certain features, like a particular physical structure (a brain), particular manifestations of behavior (personality, whimsy, emotions), and particular related structures (sensory input devices, i.e. eyes, ears, etc). So, what are the universe’s analogs? How does this universal consciousness obtain information? How does it relay information to the bits?
A: “I submit that the mind is like a tree.”
B: “In what way?”
A: “Well, it resembles a tree.”
B: “So, it has a trunk, and branches, and bark and leaves and such?”
A: “No, no, no, that’s not what I mean, I just mean that it is like a tree.”
B: 
As Telemark states, that’s no more convincing than a description of a dream. A dream that someone else experienced.
In my account of it, yes, the account of it “lacks any sense of logic and reason”, but that does not necessarily strip it of truth value, see below. “Shit happened” frankly is one way to frame it, though not the most formal.
The trouble I have with that is that ‘prior’ to the big bang, there was no vacuum as space itself did not exist. Where can a fluctuation take place when there literally is no ‘where’ whatsoever?
OTOH… ok, I’ll talk about my theory a little more. First of all it is important to remember that it has two cases- there either is a ‘before’ the big bang or there isn’t, and curiously both cases lead to the same place via different routes. Aside: If there wasn’t actually any Big Bang (whether or not vacuum theory is an explanation of how that can be) then my little bit of math might end up in the dustbin.
If we’re talking about the whole universe squeezed into a timeless, dimensionless point, that is a 0th dimensional space we are talking about, whose math is A (and that’s it!). It is hard to sink your teeth into and can seem to say nothing at all, but the nub is what it is absent, which is the reflexive axiom A=A. It is similar to another example of Hume’s non-euclidean geometry, only a different axiom is discarded.
I have a tough time thinking about 0th dimensional space, but it seems to me that it is capable of a binary set of states: ‘Full’ or ‘Empty’, corresponding to 1 or 0. If it is ‘Full’, well then you’ve got your Primordial Orb, roll the tape of the big bang and let’s get on with it. But if it is ‘Empty’, well remember that the reflexive axiom is not in play. A != A. Or 0 !=0. If your choices are 0 or 1, and 0 !=0, therefore 0=1. Effectively there isn’t any choice but for the universe to exist.
Interestingly, if you want to look at the vacuum theory another way, we could interpret the statement, “the total energy of the universe is zero” as a restatement of the reverse of what I’ve just said, namely 1=0. Isn’t that neat?
Now. As for why we are alive, again, the above is more an answer to ‘why does stuff exist?’
The dashed line is to be clear that I’m changing the subject. I’d like the A theory to remain separate from what I talk about next.
To me, there is a way in which the A theory is suggestive of non-duality. I’ll try to explain why if you want, but notions of non-duality have been around for a long time in a lot of different traditions. The jnana guys give the best account of it that I am aware of, and they will tell you that the purpose of existence is explained with non-duality, but again I want to stress that I am just pointing that out and not vouching for its veracity, because again I don’t know for sure. The jnana guys would actually rather not speak at all, but they especially like the description/explanation, “I am that I am”. Interestingly Moses originally reported that (assuming he came first), but more interestingly, if I am not mistaken, that is a more formal way of saying, “shit happens”. Isn’t that neat?
No it isn’t, you’re just avoiding the challenge for fear that it might be proved true.
Wrong. Again, implied in this response is a timid approach to deal with the issue at hand, notwithstanding your express acknowledgement of precisely what the main topic is.
The question here is whether the universe is conscious or not; all the contents of the bag have been disclosed and exposed for all to see, so all this “I have something in this bag” talk is just nonsense. It’s already been established that the point is to establish the consciousness of the universe, and as a matter of fact, the dialogue should have been as follows:
A: “I propose that the universe is conscious.”
B: “Prove it.”
A: “We first must establish a mutually-accepted criteria for determining whether
consciousness manifests or not.”
B: “Yes, yes, of course; any ideas?”
A:”Sure. Considering the scope and universal nature of our endeavor, it’s only appropriate that this criterion be based on universal attributes rather than specific consciousness characteristics found in humans and animals on a single tiny dot in the universe that we call planet earth, no?”
B: “But of course, it is the consciousness of the universe that we trying to establish here, so yes, the attributes would definitely have to be universal. Localized features like “a particular physical structure (a brain), particular manifestations of behavior (personality, whimsy, emotions), and particular related structures (sensory input devices, i.e. eyes, ears, etc)” would only apply if it was our intention was to establish existence of consciousness on another continent on planet earth, for such would be the consciousness characteristics we would expect to manifest in atmospheric conditions prevalent on planet earth; atmospheric conditions such as the constant supply of oxygen for the brain to function. Now, since oxygen doesn’t exist on the greater parts of the universe, any form of consciousness that would exist thereon would not have a brain, because a brain wouldn’t be able to function in such conditions. So yes, it would indeed be absurd to apply localized features of humans to other parts of the universe that are destitute of certain atmospheric conditions like the supply of oxygen.”
A: “Aye, absurd and puerile indeed it would be, to waste our time with such follies.
I propose that one of the criterions be the existence of activity and motion, for where there is consciousness they’ll sure be some form of activity.
The second proposed criterion should be the existence of intelligent activity as opposed to haphazard motion and activity.
The third, the presence of a circuit or stream-both figuratively and literally-of pulsating electromagnetic energy acting as a source of sustenance and perpetuation of this consciousness.”
You forget that such was the very event that led to the extinction of dinosaurs. Unfortunately, you take things for granted and allocate such planetary cataclysms to the categories of ‘natural phenomena’.
In addition to being rude, this is dead wrong: there are a great many of us who would love to enter into a dialogue with an intelligent cosmos! It would be the greatest discovery of all time.
Yes…and you’ve failed to provide even the least sketch of a hypothesis. How is the universe conscious? Show us a clear example of even the least “stimulus/response” reaction on its part. A blooming Euglena shows more awareness of its environment than the universe does!
Show us how the universe acts. You sneer at our relegation of cometary orbits to “natural laws,” but, well, Newton and Halley did that some 250 years ago or so. Show us a comet that alters its orbit to meet a space probe (or to avoid one.)
If you won’t open the bag, at least try to describe what’s inside.
My apologies, wasn’t intentional.
But you already do that; its just that you aren’t aware of it. (hint: it’s a bit different from interacting with other human beings.)
The universe doesn’t have an environment to respond to, so to reiterate, the way it manifests its consciousness will be different from other life forms that live inside it.
I’ve proposed a framework within which I can demonstrate this.
:rolleyes: I’ve engaged you in this conversation, haven’t I? You’re the one who has failed to provide evidence, though this latest is at least the beginnings of a framework for evaluating the situation. But I explained in detail why I think consciousness itself is poorly understood, and thus the question of how to identify it in the first place is a complex challenge. You can’t just handwave that and say I don’t want an answer.
You’ve failed to understand the analogy. My point is we don’t know what the answer looks like, so we have a challenge describing what would prove the answer. You ask me what would prove it, and I can’t tell you, because I don’t know what characteristics it would have. I can only tell you when an answer is not convincing.
Actually, first we must define what we mean by “consciousness”. But yes, how do we recognize consciousness is a preliminary step.
B: “Yes, yes, of course; any ideas?”
So far, the only consciousness we agree exists has to have a brain. I’m not saying it’s impossible for the universe to be conscious without meat matter, but I’m looking for a structure or mechanism that does what the brain does. But without knowing what consciousness is and how it manifests, that is perhaps the wrong approach, as we can’t describe how meat matter makes consciousness, so how can we discount some other form? Like I said, what’s in the bag? I can’t describe it, because I’ve never seen it.
So far, these are characteristics that appear fundamentally linked to consciousness.
It’s not the particular structures themselves, it is the function they perform. Eyes, ears, etc provide the inputs that our human consciousness uses to adapt and make decisions. Without inputs, consciousness has nothing to interpret or react to. How is that consciousness?
A necessary but insufficient condition. Okay, first step.
Agreed, this appears to be the unique defining characteristic of consciousness. It’s the definitive outward indicator. Now we run into the problem that the “Intelligent Design” folks have, how do you recognize intelligent activity?
And where is this stream of pulsating electromagnetic energy in humans? What is your rationale for this criterion? How does it fit the one example we have to work with?
No, you are taking a haphazard action as a response for my request for an example for an intelligent action. You just said we need an intelligent action to prove consciousness, so you need a better example.
For it to be called “conscious interaction,” it needs to be sufficiently alike to the known example of conscious interaction – human conversation. If it is very, very broadly different, then the metaphor fails.
For instance, I interact with the sun – by getting a tan. (Or a burn.) But in what way can I possibly be said to have any communicative effect on the sun? How can the sun hear me? What would it even care, if it could hear me?
There is no possible way for my interaction with the sun to be called a “conscious interaction,” as it bears no resemblance at all to a dialogue, a discussion, or a conversation.
The universe as a whole is even more remote. What has it got to say to me, or me to it?
As far as I can see, the interaction is so very different that using a familiar term like “conscious” implies much more than can be shown. It’s a bit of a false promise.
Well…you’ve said a few things, but they desperately need amplification. What may seem clear to you is, alas, still foggy to the rest of us.
This is what kills it for me. The universe appears to be going about its business in a way that is much more mechanistic than intelligent. Yes, there are large structures – galaxies and clusters – but they don’t seem to have any meaningful pattern to them. At the smallest scale, atoms decay with every indication of perfect randomness. No hint of “intent” has been shown.
Here, I would accept the electro-chemical reactions of our neurons. It isn’t “electromagnetic,” but it is a “stream of pulsating energy.” Much more to the point, it is modulated, in such a way as to carry information. The optic nerve carries very specific information to the part of the brain that processes visual information.
The problem is, of course, that no such stream is in evidence anywhere outside of living things here on earth. The sun, quite clearly, has “streams of pulsating energy.” Sunspots, prominences, flares. But there is no indication that these carry information in any way.
(I remember the early hoopla when pulsars were first discovered! We wanted it to be an intelligent signal! We wanted it to be “little green men.” It wasn’t, and, while we were disappointed, it did lead to fascinating discoveries. When life gives you pulsars, make pulsar-ade!)
A human being is the most appropriate example we can use as the basis for recognizing intelligent activity in the cosmos. Human beings observe the universe from within, akin to germs inside the human body observing the flow of blood, beats of the heart and so on. These germs, astounded and bewildered by this vast internal organization of the human anatomy, glance at each other and ask themselves: “Is this thing conscious?” The most popular, and indeed, the most rational - though not close to the truth - opinion from their point of view would be as follows (my additions in parenthesis):
True, the internal organs of the human body, do seem to operate in a mechanistic manner. However, to be more pragmatic and diametrically honest, it is this mechanistic hardware that forms the machinery which produces consciousness; when the hardware isn’t functioning at all or rather, when it is absent, there is no consciousness. Intelligence, which is but a product of consciousness, is thus produced by a naturally-occurring and properly functioning mechanistic hardware such as the human body. The presence of such a system in humans should have taught us that consciousness arises out of a functioning mechanistic structure.
Now, the germs inside a human body would probably conclude that the pounding of the heart and the motion of the lungs does not demonstrate that the being wherein this system is operating, is conscious. However, as human beings ourselves, we know it is true that our consciousness is derived from a mechanistic anatomy. When the hardware stops functioning, we pronounce death. Hence, the existence of a ‘naturally-occurring’ mechanistic and active system demonstrates the presence of an intelligent conscious entity.
The request, as evidence for a conscious universe, that a planet inexplicably veer of its normal course is akin to a request by one of the germs inside a human body, for evidence of the human’s consciousness, from the other germ, to demonstrate that the heart can just decide to stop beating because ‘it just wanted to go on summer vacation before coming back to work overtime in winter.’
The evidence will be provided on the grounds that we humans observe the internal mechanistic structure of the universe at work.
A dead person is one whose ‘plug has been pulled’. It’s as if a living conscious entity is ‘wired’ to some ‘life source’; an energy source, if you like. Either way, let’s just say that when something is conscious, it emits energy, when it’s not, it doesn’t.
The Duracells in my flashlight are conscious when I turn it on?
Your flashlight is brighter than you thought!
If the germs in question were on or near the optic nerve, and, themselves, had the sophistication to comprehend mathematical information theory, then, yeah, they might just figure out that a real modulated signal is being transferred.
On the other hand, if all they have is the heart-beat, they would soon have to dismiss it as non-conscious. It’s variable, but mostly very regular. Just as we decided that Pulsars are not “signals,” so the germ-society would have to decide that the heartbeat is not a sign of intelligence.
Yes, some mechanistic systems can (and do) produce consciousness. The neurons produce our intelligence.
This doesn’t mean that all mechanistic systems produce consciousness. The sun’s surface is not intelligent. The Andromeda Galaxy is not intelligent. The Internet is not intelligent.
(The Internet is remarkably clever, as far as tools go. I wish I had a machine-shop that was as adaptable, as self-modifying, as responsive, as the Internet! I could create incredible products. Of course, they’d all be decorated with Hentai…)
The fallacy of generalization. The scientists who discovered Helium thought it would be a metal, because most elements are metals. If they’d known it was a gas, they’d have called it Helion. Generalization is a tool that works only sometimes.
You are explaining why there is no evidence. What you aren’t doing is providing evidence itself.
There are a lot of things we don’t know about the cosmos. We don’t have license to “fill in the gaps” and draw specific conclusions in the absence of sure knowledge.
Honest mapmakers leave unexplored parts of the map blank. Dishonest mapmakers say, “Here there be Dragons.”