Is the Universe Conscious?

This is a question that Scientist are seriously asking and it's good to see. The Ancients have been saying this for years and it's good to see Scientist talking about this subject.

Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.

For centuries, modern science has been shrinking the gap between humans and the rest of the universe, from Isaac Newton showing that one set of laws applies equally to falling apples and orbiting moons to Carl Sagan intoning that “we are made of star stuff” — that the atoms of our bodies were literally forged in the nuclear furnaces of other stars.

Even in that context, Gregory Matloff’s ideas are shocking. The veteran physicist at New York City College of Technology recently published a paper arguing that humans may be like the rest of the universe in substance and in spirit. A “proto-consciousness field” could extend through all of space, he argues. Stars may be thinking entities that deliberately control their paths. Put more bluntly, the entire cosmos may be self-aware.

www.nbcnews.com...

This is what some people on ATS have also been saying for years. A materialist explanation of consciousness makes no sense. This is why I have posted extensively aout a Quantum Mind. What makes this even more interesting is that he's looking for ways to test this.

They also talk about how more Scientist are turning to Panpsychism.

The notion of a conscious universe sounds more like the stuff of late night TV than academic journals. Called by its formal academic name, though, “panpsychism” turns out to have prominent supporters in a variety of fields. New York University philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers is a proponent. So too, in different ways, are neuroscientist Christof Koch of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose, renowned for his work on gravity and black holes. The bottom line, Matloff argues, is that panpsychism is too important to ignore.

“It’s all very speculative, but it’s something we can check and either validate or falsify,” he says.

www.nbcnews.com...

Here's one of the observational tests he's looking at. It's very important because we have recently debated Dean Radin's published paper as to how consciousness can interfere with the wave function as well as random number generators.

The point I made in those debates is that Psi experiments show that consciousness can cause a random system to behave in a non random way. This is exactly what he's saying.

One of the hallmarks of life is its ability to adjust its behavior in response to stimulus. Matloff began searching for astronomical objects that unexpectedly exhibit this behavior. Recently, he zeroed in on a little-studied anomaly in stellar motion known as Paranego’s Discontinuity. On average, cooler stars orbit our galaxy more quickly than do hotter ones. Most astronomers attribute the effect to interactions between stars and gas clouds throughout the galaxy. Matloff considered a different explanation. He noted that the anomaly appears in stars that are cool enough to have molecules in their atmospheres, which greatly increases their chemical complexity.

Matloff noted further that some stars appear to emit jets that point in only one direction, an unbalanced process that could cause a star to alter its motion. He wondered: Could this actually be a willful process? Is there any way to tell?

If Paranego’s Discontinuity is caused by specific conditions within the galaxy, it should vary from location to location. But if it is something intrinsic to the stars — as consciousness would be — it should be the same everywhere. Data from existing stellar catalogs seems to support the latter view, Matloff claims. Detailed results from the Gaia star-mapping space telescope, due in 2018, will provide a more stringent test.

www.nbcnews.com...

Just wow!

He's saying that consciousness interacts with systems that are complex. So there's a proto-conscious field that interacts and shapes the universe. This could begin to explain a lot of things.

For instance, this could be why earth size planets are "quite common" in the universe as reported recently. Scientist didn't expect this but earth size planets are better incubators for life to evolve so why wouldn't a proto-conscious field alter a random distribution of planets to make earth size planets more common? This gives proto-conscious more complex systems to interact with.

Here's a link to the published paper.

Can Panpsychism Become an Observational Science?

Abstract

In 2011, I was invited to participate in a symposium at the London headquarters of the British Interplanetary Society. The subject of the symposium was the contributions of philosopher/science-fiction-author Olaf Stapledon. Instead of concentrating on the many technological projections in Stapledon’s masterwork Star Maker, I elected to investigate whether there is any evidence to support his core metaphysics—that the universe is in some sense conscious and that a portion of stellar motion is volitional (as an alternative to Dark Matter). Stars do not possess neurons or tubules, but the spectral signatures of cooler stars such as the Sun reveal the presence of simple molecules. A universal proto-consciousness field congruent with vacuum fluctuations could interact with molecular matter via the contribution of the Casimir Effect to molecular bonds. Surprisingly, there is observational evidence that cooler stars move somewhat faster around the galactic center than their hotter sisters. This velocity difference, called Parenago’s Discontinuity, occurs in the stellar temperature distribution where molecular spectral lines become apparent. Data from Allen’s Astrophysical Quantities and the European Hipparcos space observatory reveal that Parenago’s Discontinuity is found in main sequence stars as far as ~260 light years from the Sun and in giant stars at distances greater than 1,000 light years. As discussed in the paper, local explanations for Parenago’s Discontinuity seem inadequate. Gaia, a successor to Hipparcos, is currently on station observing positions and motions of ~1 billion stars in our galaxy. If the Discontinuity is a galaxy-wide phenomenon, the volitional star hypothesis will be advanced. One way that a minded star could alter its galactic trajectory is by the emission of a uni-directional jet. Such jets have been observed in young stars. Future work will hopefully show how uni-directional jets correlate with star temperature and distance from the galactic center. It is therefore not impossible that panpsychism can emerge from philosophy to become a subdivision of observational astrophysics.

jcer.com...

Here's a video of Stuart Hameroff who worked with Roger Penrose on the Quantum Mind talking about proto-consciousness.

The Universe has a purpose. That purpose has an awareness and the awareness has a name.

The Mother of the Universe.

From my books no less

P

a reply to: neoholographic

The answer is an easy NO.

And what a waste of time they are embarking on..they cant even find out stuff about Earth...deny many forms of provable consciousness on earth..and yet want to ask the Universe as a whole if it has a singular thought process??

This is easy...NO....and no consciousness invented it either...it is the result of the consciousness destroying itself...to give something new a chance to form.....

a reply to: neoholographic

If a star is sentient, I wonder how you would communicate with it? Or if even our perception of time would allow us to recognize communication?

This is one of the more interesting theories I've read in a while.

S&F

“It’s all very speculative, but it’s something we can check and either validate or falsify,” he says.

Matloff is under no illusion that his colleagues will be convinced, but he remains upbeat: “Shouldn’t we at least be checking?

his confidence is contagious. but the community must remain insistent on actually testing these hypotheses and investigating them with all due rigor.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: neoholographic

The answer is an easy NO.

And what a waste of time they are embarking on..they cant even find out stuff about Earth...deny many forms of provable consciousness on earth..and yet want to ask the Universe as a whole if it has a singular thought process??

This is easy...NO....and no consciousness invented it either...it is the result of the consciousness destroying itself...to give something new a chance to form.....

Hmmmm....

I like what you are saying here. I've studied the theory of the conscious Universe for sometime and found many issues I have with it but quite honestly you summed it up well.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Of course he's cautious as he should be.

Inflation started off as speculative, so did the existence of atoms. Einstein's SR and GR were seen as speculative by many who saw Theoretical Physics as a waste of time.

It just shows he's a good Scientist.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: neoholographic

If a star is sentient, I wonder how you would communicate with it? Or if even our perception of time would allow us to recognize communication?

This is one of the more interesting theories I've read in a while.

S&F

Yes, it's very interesting. What makes it even more important is Psi experiments have been saying the same thing for years.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

Of course he's cautious as he should be.

Inflation started off as speculative, so did the existence of atoms. Einstein's SR and GR were seen as speculative by many who saw Theoretical Physics as a waste of time.

It just shows he's a good Scientist.

as a matter of curiosity, what would the practical applications be assuming tests confirm these hypotheses? how would we act on the knowledge that perhaps the universe is conscious on some level?

Well if it is not then you have to believe in intelligent design right? So which one is it?

Just to mix things up, I believe in a little of both. Please provide proof if I am wrong.

Point being, we have a little to learn, don't we?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

Of course he's cautious as he should be.

Inflation started off as speculative, so did the existence of atoms. Einstein's SR and GR were seen as speculative by many who saw Theoretical Physics as a waste of time.

It just shows he's a good Scientist.

as a matter of curiosity, what would the practical applications be assuming tests confirm these hypotheses? how would we act on the knowledge that perhaps the universe is conscious on some level?

It's not just a matter of curiosity. If we learn what type of systems proto-consciousness interacts with we might be able to create this systems which would take A.I. to a whole new level.

On another note, people who aren't blinded by belief want to know the nature of reality. Just look at all of the debates about this issue.

I think this is in the wrong forum.

There is nothing yet that is scientific to enable us to answer the question.

What we will end up with is to canvass people's beliefs in this subject.

Many of those beliefs will be religious in nature.

While it is a fascinating question, at this time, in our species development, it will all come down to a belief.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

What?

It's a published paper from a Scientist. It's in the right forum.

Did you even read the article or paper?

This is a forum that debates the Quantum Mind, Warp Drive and Hawking Radiation. This is the right forum.

The Quantum Mind or talking about proto-consciousness has nothing to do with Religion or belief.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: neoholographic

If a star is sentient, I wonder how you would communicate with it? Or if even our perception of time would allow us to recognize communication?

This is one of the more interesting theories I've read in a while.

S&F

Yes, it's very interesting. What makes it even more important is Psi experiments have been saying the same thing for years.

Maybe a theory of the universe isn't complete without a theory of the mind, and it's interaction with it?

It says a lot that the effects of conscious observation can be measured. I feel like we're in the first stages of actually making headway into understanding our reality, and all the weirdness that comes with it.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: neoholographic

If a star is sentient, I wonder how you would communicate with it? Or if even our perception of time would allow us to recognize communication?

This is one of the more interesting theories I've read in a while.

S&F

Yes, it's very interesting. What makes it even more important is Psi experiments have been saying the same thing for years.

Maybe a theory of the universe isn't complete without a theory of the mind, and it's interaction with it?

It says a lot that the effects of conscious observation can be measured. I feel like we're in the first stages of actually making headway into understanding our reality.

Good points and we know through things like The Free Will Theorem, that consciousness creates reality by causing a measurement to occur.

For instance, when a Physicist goes into his/her lab to measure the spin state of a particle spin up/spin down doesn't exist as a measured state until a conscious observer makes a choice to carry out a measurement.

a reply to: neoholographic

Makes a lot of sense, and if true, adds a lot of credence to astrology in a weird way.

A human brain needs to be highly structured with controlled information pathways to achieve consciousness.

Stars are highly chaotic. If you put a human in a giant blender, I don't think they could ever become conscious.

The acceptance of the universe as infinite demands, at the very least, that, everything conceivable, and much that is beyond conception, theoretically exists.

The idea of conscious universe also falls within the infinite premise. (Cerebral Implosion Occurs)

I believe that everything in the universe combines to form a collective consciousness and this collective consciousness actually sets the table for more life to form. What would this consciousness be called? Well, maybe it could be called god.

More importantly is the collective consciousness of this planet, because we could tap easier into that. I am not just talking of man's collective consciousness, we share that with each other already. I am talking of a collective consciousness of all life, it lives all over this planet. Linking to that would be linking to sophia or Wisdom. People who are smart do not realize, their ability to understand things comes from a natural link with this consciousness. I am not talking of book smarts here, I am talking of knowing things you have never been taught. Some people just know things....how...Because they are linked to others that know. But this link can be to all life, not just people who are related. This link would be what is referred to as the holy spirit, Gaia, the link with the mother.

Some people who believe in only science are wrong, there is way more to this than what we have discovered so far in science. Look how much science has been proven wrong over the last twenty years. That is because people believed they knew something when they didn't. Science is a religion because belief in what you think is real dominates your perception. Self deception is imminent. These scientists in the article see that, they started to question direction, which path they were on.

a reply to: neoholographic
Subjectively speaking, I think so.
For if inhabitants within this Universe can gain consciousness and the habitats and other Celestial objects are constructs ultimately of the Universe, then why would the Universe not also carry a consciousness?