Why a Conscious Universe is a sensible solution.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

You have a thumb and it is part of your fingers. Your statement implies all your fingers are thumbs.

The analogy is incorrect, all I said is that at least the thumb is a thumb, so it's not true that fingers can't be thumbs.

But it's still a very stupid analogy.

The problem is that, as many, you consider a part as separated from the whole, thus when people say the universe shows consciousness it automatically means for you "the universe MINUS human consciousness" which is a silly thing to do.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Not because an infinitively small portion of the Universe is populated with conscious beings means that we can apply this definition the the whole universe.

Even if other civilizations exist out there, they still can't communicate with us. If civilizations are this Universe's neurones, then the Universe is brain dead. For the universe to have consciousness, it must be able to perform thoughts. To be able to perform thoughts, it must be able to send information to other sectors of its "brain". Since light speed is the limit for any transmission of information, and since the Universe is billions of light-years across, the Universe has very poor information transmission capacity - and even less chances of becoming self-aware in this period of time. It is, by definition, brain dead, or, at least, much unconscious.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Not because an infinitively small portion of the Universe is populated with conscious beings means that we can apply this definition the the whole universe.

The problem is that you project on me things that I never said.

You think I explicitly said that "the universe" (planets/nebulae/galaxies in your mind) is conscious, which I never did. Actually I said like you it can't be proven so far so it's subjective and personal belief anyway.


All I said, is that this:

The universe is as conscious as a rock.

Is incorrect because mankind at least is a part of the universe so there is consciousness in the universe, and it happens to be at least located in humans.


Maybe you should not be so defensive and take the time to read what is posted.




Regarding your opinion that there could NOT exist a consciousness at a level higher than the human individual, it is an opinion, I respect it, but neither the existence or non-existence of such consciousness can be proven so far.

At the very least all I can say is to repeat that thinking that humans are the highest form of consciousness around, even locally, is quite presumptuous. Do you think a worm or an ant is capable of understanding that humans are conscious beings? They can't.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
If a universal consciousness does exist, it exists independently of the existence of life. That's the pantheist definition of god.

First of all, I don't think our consciousnesses exists outside of our human minds. Consciousness is not some separate "thing" that happens to take up residence inside our brain when we are born. Instead, consciousness is simply the result of our brain chemistry and our brain cells doing their thing. Therefore, I don't think that consciousness extends anywhere beyond our brains.

A vast majority believing in a universe with a meaning (thus a consciousness since meaning is a construction of the mind), and the rest believing in a purely mechanistic universe.

I see the apparent complexity of the universe as being emergent from a few basic laws of nature. That in itself is pretty damn amazing -- i.e., out of the perceived chaos and randomness of events in the universe, it all can be boiled down to something orderly.

I don't need a cosmic consciousness or a supreme being/God for that -- just the laws of nature. The universe is similar to a fractal: a fractal looks complex and random, but that apparent complexity and randomness is emergent from a few simple mathematical rules. In the case of the universe, a few basic rules of nature are what creates the complexity.

I suppose those few rules of nature could be what is the underlying driver of the universe, the grand connection between all things -- i.e., its "God", if you will, but not in the normal sense of what many people call "God".

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I understand your view and for a very long time I shared it.

But once again, we could debate this for hours, like people did for thousands of years, the fact remains that so far it only can be a personal opinion and not the result of an experiment definitely giving weight to one or the other possibility. Hence why science doesn't bother with the question and in fact it shouldn't (until we could be able to open a communication channel with that possible consciousness) so it's OK.

I just said the majority of humanity does not share it, and it's probably presumptuous to rule out the possibility completely.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

I suppose those few rules of nature could be what is the underlying driver of the universe, the grand connection between all things -- i.e., its "God", if you will, but not in the normal sense of what many people call "God".

I agree. That's why I said the reason the majority of people believe in a greater consciousness (or god) is because they believe the universe has a meaning, and is not a purely mechanical result of initial parameters.

And for the universe to have a purpose/meaning, it means that such meaning was assigned at creation, thus by a consciousness external to ours.

But again, it's nothing but a personal belief, and yet it's shared by around 90% of mankind.

Maybe you should not be so defensive and take the time to read what is posted.

I did. And I understand the opinion that the Universe is conscious, because I used to share it.

Regarding your opinion that there could NOT exist a consciousness at a level higher than the human individual, it is an opinion, I respect it, but neither the existence or non-existence of such consciousness can be proven so far.

Fair enough

a reply to: swanne

In most of the readings/viewings/listening that I have done, the idea of Pantheism held the most weight. Unlike a Pantheist, Buddhist, etc., I find that the they never explain why things ARE,
I believe that if you examine what is verifiable by your own senses, that the Universe seeks to evolve. You did from a blastome. Paramecium breed without sexes.
This all matures from what appears to be non-living material. A differential of energy allows for these materials to be assembled into other macro-devices that apply themselves to acting like life.
If a rock is in space, it will become an accretion eventually. It is just a matter of time.
When it gathers enough company, it becomes a potential site for more complicated devices. It always has a potential to do so.
The stars act like life in that they gather material, use it for 'body', transmute the raw stuffs into a 'food', and expel waste materials. Galaxies go through evolvement.
The crudest of materials, such as protons, supposedly all decay after having been formed of ever smaller, less definitive materials.
It's evolving.
In a deterministic Universe, one NOT conscious, statistics and Free Will can not exist. How can something be probable in it. It has no flexibility. It can not evolve, it only runs the numbers which implies it already knows the result it wants. No mystery, no allowance for novel changes.
Sorta dead already, eh?
We know that the Bell Curve exists. We know that really extreme outliers are really uncommon. Heck, we call them deviations. How do they come about? We just say, "Stuff happens." I agree.
In order for change to happen, for the fractal explosion into every possible cranny, a fairly stable platform must exist. That is the Universe. A statistical mean is always being sought, from your heartbeat to rolling sevens. This is the island of somewhat stable, a platform, from which the future is launched. You can't get somewhere without leaving somewhere.
The other aspect of a statistical Universe is that it will USE what fits its design, until it is replaced by the better option.
It allows unlikely events to mold the future outcomes. If they are not a successful adaption, the Universe returns to the mean.
As we have dug down (at least mathematically) to the base level, the speculation is that the Quantum Foam is where it all begins. Planck measurements of time and space begin here. Yet we talk about it seethes with extreme energies generating spurious particles which in turn are returned to nothingness. Yet we exist (as best as I can tell) as these hugely hulking forms. Our essence, consisting of particles that the Universe has decided to maintain, comes from places that consume as much as they emit. How come?
Statistics. Why does an absence of anti-matter conform to what we see. Statistics.
The allowance of non-conformity may or may not be directed. God does, if he exists, plays with dice.
It's everywhere and affects everything.
Evolution is everywhere.
It originates at the infinitesimal and includes Galactic Clusters.
So the Universe is a platform. It wants something and informs us of that fact every time we eat well, don't jump from high places and assist it. It will utilize all of its power to crushing opposition to its causes. If a grievous mistake is made, say nuclear war, it will wipe the slate clean without concern. It has all the time it needs to do what it wants.
Time is very cool as it is part of the overall plan. It's a placemarker. How can you evolve if you don't have a past?
In turn when we come across anomalies that are deal breakers, the paranormal, which are statistically verifiable (See Example in OP) as truly strange, where does that fit? Cases of re-incarnation, Human auras, healers, dogs awaiting unexpected returns, Etc., are adjustments resulting from SOME intent. If you require something more mundane, the Observer Effect may actually be weirder by Dualism standards. The Universe will adjust the NOW as needed to keep itself stable.
Descartes got us here. One smart guy who talks of his being as the core of the Universe. A guy who flayed animals alive to see if they could feel pain. The chuckleheads who went down this path are the guys who led us to Environmental disaster, because we are NOT of the world. We are somehow better than a rock.
We are not. We are part of a Universe that uses us as nodes. The better the complexity, the greater the association with its wants. We are fulcrums, not foci. Otherwise the game is over but there is no reason to believe it is.
Morality can derived from this format. Beauty, sanity, community is a natural outcome from this model.
The Universe is a platform that wants to evolve. It is conscious of that desire and it will actively promote its cause.
Incidentally, the comment concerning the limitations of language is why I always have hated Philosophy and the sheer egoism of most of their promoters. They have created a menagerie of jargons which are unalloyed BS and are employed to disguise arguments that are circular, anthropomorphic and baseless.
In my conception, 'Cogito Ergo Sum' is stupid. You think because the Universe ALLOWS AND WANTS your assemblage of micro-cosmic particles to do so. I see no other conclusion which is consistent with observations.
I am looking for criticism before I start REALLY pressing this idea. Thanks for reading.