Is the Universe Conscious?

originally posted by: neoholographic

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.

I just read the strong free will theorem and when combined with this the implications are mind blowing to me. We may very well live in a hyper dimensional universe with our consciousness as the connecting fiber. Almost like it permeates through everything.

Do you know of any other papers or supporting theories that would be good related reading?

a reply to: neoholographic

Nah, the universe is unconscious, passed out most of the time.

And he never does anything to help his wife around the house, either!

Just another unemployed drunk. That's why they live in a trailer park.

a reply to: neoholographic

I know this does not matter for the most of you,

But yes the universe is conscious and it has lots of predatory characteristics, it is the near perfect form of autosarcophagy.

At least, that is what she said.

Left is neurons in a mouse I believe. Right is a theoretical depiction of the structure of the universe by some scientist.

Not solid, but interesting.

a reply to: underwerks

If you have the knowledge on how to entangle any quanta (pixel) with any other quanta thru entanglement and know what quanta you are connecting it to, you can use this connection to scan the star one quanta at a time.

You would need a quanta space the same size as a star that you are controlling to do it and that is just one time slot you are measuring. .

The Universe is stupid.
It's too damned big.
Go home Universe. You're drunk.

a reply to: rickymouse

To be fair. Scientist can do more test to change their perception if they want to.

Materialism is a religion that have been proven wrong by the observation of entanglement. Scientist are creating their own faith dogma and behave like priests when they do not follow the scientific principle.

The majority of quantum physics have been really incompetent in the last 70 years compared to other fields. That a majority of quantum physics said that there is no quantum effects in a cell, proves how incompetent the majority is compared to those who pushes the field forward.

It would give a new emphasis on the meaning of "No matter big or smart you are, there always going to be something bigger."

Can't really make up my mind about it, even though the farthest thing that we can imagine or know about the universe is the Cosmic Web that looks like a giant membrane or Tree. Like a thunderer fighting a giant snake that eats world's or swallows sun's at the root of a cosmic tree gnawing at it, at the end of it all when it swallows itself.

The other thing is too, is the amount of superstition that can go behind such a beleive. like that furturama episode where bender a god and end up talking to the real thing, or even Star Wars for that matter.

However to say it got a literal mind of it or an actual ego, where it could give a new meaning to larger a then life may more fantasy.

Of course the universe is conscious. I am typing this message to you now, I am conscious, I am a part of the universe.

Here's another article related to the subject. It's very similar, but not exactly the same as that of the OP.

The Universe May Be Conscious, Prominent Scientists State

That whole 'consciousness as emergent quantum property' stuff is pure sci-fi, along with 'golly gee, we could prop open a quantum wormhole and go backward in time' and 'we've disassembled and reassembled an atom, therefore teleportation!'

What these scientists are actually saying is: "Here is a really interesting notion (which we have no hope of realising), please can we have some more funds for hookers and blow, I mean in-depth research in or around that general area."

Consciousness as a time-like dimension is more appealing - as in, it's impossible to describe (because it defines our vocabulary, rather than vice-versa) but immediately recognisable, and some things have more of it than others.

a reply to: ParasuvO

AHH did someone who tries to use science to explain his atheism get smacked in the face with science? hmm? poor baby.

It is only logical based on observable phenomena that there are higher hierarchies of consciousness. That consciousness is not a construct of the body, but a frequency of energy that is partially trapped by the nervous system and brain.

I have espoused this for years and years. There are just too many observed phenomena that are explained by this theory that are not explained by modern paradigms. What do the espousers of the paradigms do with this phenomena? They dismiss it out of hand, pointing out their lack of scientific methodology and reasoning ability.

Jaden

Have fun with your ostriching...

a reply to: audubon

OMG are you #ing serious with this bull#?? Scientists think outside the paradigm and you come up with hookers and blow? Get real. The people who fudge results to stay within the paradigm are the ones looking for hookers and blow, not pioneering scientists that think outside of the paradigms.

Jaden

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: neoholographic

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.

I just read the strong free will theorem and when combined with this the implications are mind blowing to me. We may very well live in a hyper dimensional universe with our consciousness as the connecting fiber. Almost like it permeates through everything.

Do you know of any other papers or supporting theories that would be good related reading?

Exactly, the Free Will Theorem is a blow to the gut of materialism.

Here's a study from Dean Radin that shows how conscious intention can interfere with the wave function.



Here's a link to the paper.

deanradin.com...

Here's a study that says the wave function is real but NON PHYSICAL.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

arxiv.org...

Here's a list of Published Papers on Psi.

Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet).

So I've created a SHOW ME page with downloadable articles on psi and psi-related topics, all published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of these papers were published after the year 2000. Most report experimental studies or meta-analyses of classes of experiments. I will continue to add to this page and flesh it out, including links to recent or to especially useful ebooks. This page may eventually become annotated, then multithreaded and hyperlinked, and then morph into a Wiki.

noetic.org...

a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks!

This is such fascinating stuff, even down to the basics on earth of plants knowing which way to turn to face the sun. I know it sounds silly, but what in the flower is making it turn to face the sun. It hasn't got eyes, so it must have a sensory ability of some kind to feel heat. Moving a little further up the ladder, you see evolution, and its always baffled me how does the brain tell a certain part of the body to change to adapt to the surroundings. The eyes look they see an opportunity for survival, or a better food source, and then it tells the body to adapt, what if it didn't have eyes, would we still be able to adapt.

Maybe the jets from planets are feeding something that needs it, there a relationship between the jet owner and the recipient that allows them both to benefit, what is it?

I think to get this sort of stuff, we as human beings have to move away from the idea that nothing but complex animals have a form of intelligence and needs, it seems everything needs something from somewhere to survive, whether that's by instant gratification or over millenia.

originally posted by: multichild
This is such fascinating stuff, even down to the basics on earth of plants knowing which way to turn to face the sun. I know it sounds silly, but what in the flower is making it turn to face the sun. It hasn't got eyes, so it must have a sensory ability of some kind to feel heat. Moving a little further up the ladder, you see evolution, and its always baffled me how does the brain tell a certain part of the body to change to adapt to the surroundings. The eyes look they see an opportunity for survival, or a better food source, and then it tells the body to adapt, what if it didn't have eyes, would we still be able to adapt.

Maybe the jets from planets are feeding something that needs it, there a relationship between the jet owner and the recipient that allows them both to benefit, what is it?

I think to get this sort of stuff, we as human beings have to move away from the idea that nothing but complex animals have a form of intelligence and needs, it seems everything needs something from somewhere to survive, whether that's by instant gratification or over millenia.

Excellent post with great questions. Michio Kaku makes some of these same points.



He breaks consciousness down to 3 levels and units.

He talks about plants animals and humans.

This all goes back to what some call proto-consciousness. This is a consciousness that interacts with everything.

So some things can have units of consciousness like a thermostat that senses the temperature around it. Autopilot or self driving cars have a simple level of consciousness.

Look at animals like a lion or tiger. They have a level of consciousness

Here's Tesla's 2018 self driving demonstration.



I think we need to start labeling these things a form of consciousness. I think Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory and the use of Phi can be helpful in this area.

So something as simple as a Clapper woul have a unit or half unit of consciousness because it senses sound from it's surroundings and when you clap, the lights are turned off.

This would be important because it would allow us to truly separate conscious from self awareness.

Seff Awareness is connected to a quantum mind or proto-consciousness. Conscious is the measure on how a system interacts and senses it's environment.

So you can get very intelligent A.I. but it will not be self aware without some level of quantum circuitry.

A self driving car can sense it's surroundings but it will never say, let me take a cross country trip to figure out who I am and Why I'm here.

Self Awareness is something that's aware of self and it's suroundings. It can say, I'm going on a Veggie diet to for 6 months so I can fit into these pants I want to wear to a Wedding. So no matter how conscious something is it will never have self awareness so I think it's important to separate consciousness and self awareness.

Of course the Universe could be conscious as it supports conscious life.

a reply to: Kashai

Exactly.

I think the definition of consciousness illustrates the problem.

1
a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact

The truth is, A is wrong.

B is correct. We're starting to quantify consciousness when it comes to being aware of external objects or sensing external information.

We can't quantify being aware of self and the external objects that you're conscious of.

This is why I think you have to separate consciousness and self awareness.

For instance a human and A.I. can be conscious of a sunset. We can both have all sorts of data points about the sun. We're both conscious of the sun and the sunset.

The reason human have something outside of consciousness, which I think is proto-consciousness which permeates the universe, is because we can look at the sun and have a personal me experience.

So consciousness can be quantified as the units of information you can sense from your environment. The more data you can sense, the more intelligent you are. This is why A.I. is already surpassing humans in some areas like predicting cancer from scans. This is because it can process more data points than humans consciously can.

You already have people looking at this like Integrated Information Theory or Dr. Kaku saying a thermometer has 1 unit of consciousness because it can sense the temperature in a room.

So machines will become more intelligent but not aware. Humans are aware of self and are aware of things around them and can direct and shape these things.

If you consider yourself conscious then obviously the universe is also. Unless you consider your self not part of the universe.