How did matter become aware of itself?

a reply to: neoholographic

Perhaps the real issue is not whether you are conscious or whether you are aware. The real issue is to prove that you are.

Prove to me you are. Only then I'll worry whether you are consciouss or aware at all.

Nothing is.

a reply to: neoholographic

It has now become a serious question; Does matter create consciousness or is it the other way around?

A long story, but look into Robert Lanza's books on Biocentrism.

Recent quantum physics discoveries support the theory that what we may call consciousness actually causes the transformation of energy into what appears to be a solid world, but without the consciousness present to experience the "solid" form, it really isn't there. The physical world and even time are an illusion we create for ourselves, maybe collectively, but create for ourselves nevertheless.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Zitterbewegung

'Related' sure. Show me something in this universe that isn't 'related' to everything else...

Increasingly, the physicists and the information theorists are one and the same. The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort: not just tiny but abstract—a binary digit, a flip-flop, a yes-or-no. It is insubstantial, yet as scientists finally come to understand information, they wonder whether it may be primary: more fundamental than matter itself. They suggest that the bit is the irreducible kernel and that information forms the very core of existence. Bridging the physics of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, John Archibald Wheeler, the last surviving collaborator of both Einstein and Bohr, put this manifesto in oracular monosyllables: “It from Bit.” Information gives rise to “every it—every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself.” This is another way of fathoming the paradox of the observer: that the outcome of an experiment is affected, or even determined, when it is observed. Not only is the observer observing, she is asking questions and making statements that must ultimately be expressed in discrete bits. “What we call reality,” Wheeler wrote coyly, “arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions.” He added: “All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe.” The whole universe is thus seen as a computer—a cosmic information-processing machine.

source

While fascinating as a clinical study in the discovery journey that forms the foundation of every professors podium wages, aka theory of the science as opposed to practical application (that's where the mechanics do their magic) there's a small problem here which is the root of the irony when people like me say "projecting our sentience on reality". If reality is genuinely dependent on cognizant acknowledgement aka someone reasonably clever has to witness reality, then how did matter successfully form our planet and its atmosphere and all the millions of species that inhabited this world before the first human was born?

What is looking for what?

There is only the totality.

originally posted by: NickK3
a reply to: neoholographic

It has now become a serious question; Does matter create consciousness or is it the other way around?

A long story, but look into Robert Lanza's books on Biocentrism.

Recent quantum physics discoveries support the theory that what we may call consciousness actually causes the transformation of energy into what appears to be a solid world, but without the consciousness present to experience the "solid" form, it really isn't there. The physical world and even time are an illusion we create for ourselves, maybe collectively, but create for ourselves nevertheless.

Good points.

Also, what we call matter isn't matter in the material sense. The foundations of matter, subatomic particles, are excitations of underlying quantum fields. It's nothing like a particle of sand or a particle of salt. Subatomic particles should be called subatimic states. When people hear particle they think of something that they think is local and objective like a particle of salt.

You then have to ask, how can something not aware become aware of itself. Again, it makes no sense.

You can see this in people with brain injuries that are becoming forgetful. They're still aware they just can't access the information stored on the brain because of damage to the brain.

I talked to a friend that had brain damage and he would say things like, "Remember when we went to Florida and we had a great time in...what's the name of that city we were at?" I would say Miami.

He was aware of our visit to Florida and but he just couldn't access all of the information about our trip because of damage to the reciever or brain that processes information about it's environment.

I think the first movement led to the first awareness. How can anything be aware if it's not moving...?

I feel like the HOW is less interesting than the WHY

Matter seems to want to evolve to consciousness, like the universe is striving to self-reflect.

a reply to: TzarChasm

someone reasonably clever has to witness reality, then how did matter successfully form our planet and its atmosphere and all the millions of species that inhabited this world before the first human was born?

I said it before: quantum decoherence. Everything gets its 'acknowledgement' by bouncing off eachother and the Higgs Field. An universe where everything is processing information has fundamental consciousness in everything that is. Not a human mind is necessary just another 'it'.

a reply to: Peeple

"Information" is an abstract device, a translation. Describing atomic behavior as a process implies a method, a deliberate approach to a designated outcome, there is no method to physics. It just is.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Peeple

"Information" is an abstract device, a translation. Describing atomic behavior as a process implies a method, a deliberate approach to a designated outcome, there is no method to physics. It just is.

Physics acts according to mathematically predictable laws. It is by definition an intelligent process. The Source that implemented these physical laws that allows the perpetuation of all matter and life itself is also what implemented the conscious faculty into living creatures.

It's relatively easy, look how many conscious beings you emulate in your dreams every night

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Peeple

"Information" is an abstract device, a translation. Describing atomic behavior as a process implies a method, a deliberate approach to a designated outcome, there is no method to physics. It just is.

Physics acts according to mathematically predictable laws. It is by definition an intelligent process. The Source that implemented these physical laws that allows the perpetuation of all matter and life itself is also what implemented the conscious faculty into living creatures.

It's relatively easy, look how many conscious beings you emulate in your dreams every night

Mathematically predictable laws do not indicate intelligent processes, just intelligent translations. The "awareness" is in the ability to observe and communicate accurately what is happening, not in the causality of the event. This is the part that is being projected, assuming that our language is a reflection of the universe and must therefore be a direct product of its influence.

originally posted by: neoholographic

"How did matter become aware of itself?"

I sincerely believe that we are children of the ever-enduring conscious Being that we so casually call God. Our bodies are like the material interface so our conscious quantum selves can have their individual existence and interact with other sentient beings. The Founder of the Universe raises Children in this petri dish sort of earth to allow the spawning of more conscious individuals that inevitably inherit their birthright of an eternal frontier to explore in the depths of their own infinitude as the seed sprouts into a vast network of branches and roots into the great beyond.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Mathematically predictable laws do not indicate intelligent processes, just intelligent translations. The "awareness" is in the ability to observe and communicate accurately what is happening, not in the causality of the event. This is the part that is being projected, assuming that our language is a reflection of the universe and must therefore be a direct product of its influence.

These "intelligent translations" just so happen to uphold the entirety of all matter and the cosmos. To such great precision that we have persisted in the goldi-locks zone for the entirety of known human history. This is by definition not random. It is intelligible clockwork created by the founder of All things.

a reply to: cooperton

Actually it takes no intelligence at all and if you dig deeper it's really just a matter of time and luck.

Multi-body systems such as our solar system are inherently chaotic. There isn't even a mathematical closed form solution to the 3-body problem aside from some trivial situations. We are simply lucky that the planets are far enough apart and don't exert that much gravitational force on each other.

"The stability of the Solar System is a subject of much inquiry in astronomy. Though the planets have been stable when historically observed, and will be in the short term, their weak gravitational effects on one another can add up in unpredictable ways. For this reason (among others) the Solar System is chaotic in the technical sense of mathematical chaos theory,[1] and even the most precise long-term models for the orbital motion of the Solar System are not valid over more than a few tens of millions of years.[2]

The Solar System is stable in human terms, and far beyond, given that it is unlikely any of the planets will collide with each other or be ejected from the system in the next few billion years,[3] and the Earth's orbit will be relatively stable.[4] "

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Zitterbewegung
a reply to: cooperton

Actually it takes no intelligence at all and if you dig deeper it's really just a matter of time and luck.

Multi-body systems such as our solar system are inherently chaotic. There isn't even a mathematical closed form solution to the 3-body problem aside from some trivial situations. We are simply lucky that the planets are far enough apart and don't exert that much gravitational force on each other.

"The stability of the Solar System is a subject of much inquiry in astronomy. Though the planets have been stable when historically observed, and will be in the short term, their weak gravitational effects on one another can add up in unpredictable ways. For this reason (among others) the Solar System is chaotic in the technical sense of mathematical chaos theory,[1] and even the most precise long-term models for the orbital motion of the Solar System are not valid over more than a few tens of millions of years.[2]

The Solar System is stable in human terms, and far beyond, given that it is unlikely any of the planets will collide with each other or be ejected from the system in the next few billion years,[3] and the Earth's orbit will be relatively stable.[4] "

en.wikipedia.org...

That's all speculation.

The stars have not strayed from their orbit relative to us in the past known history. So much so that the stars have been used to tell time through the precessional periods over thousands of years. We know exactly where the sun and moon will be relative to any location on the earth at every minute out of the entire year. That is textbook clockwork. When the constellations start to change outside of predictable cycles, then you might have an argument. But even the entire celestial sphere has maintained its same coordinate system for the past known astronomical history.

a reply to: cooperton

It's not speculation for Pete's sake, and I care about Pete's well being.

Something for you to ponder:

Do you realize we can't measure a real number?

a reply to: cooperton


"Earth Is Drifting Away From The Sun, And So Are All The Planets"

www.forbes.com...

This may be too complex a topic for you but entropy (disorder) increases over time. That's the law my man!

The universe aint perfect at all and ultimately will descend into disorder and heat death.

en.wikipedia.org...

According to our current understanding of physics.

originally posted by: Zitterbewegung
a reply to: cooperton

It's not speculation for Pete's sake, and I care about Pete's well being.

DM me when the sun or moon are in a location that isn't according to their usual predictable orbit.

Look up "Manhattanhenge"... the sun sets between two skyscrapers in Manhattan at a predictable time on the same day every year. It's clockwork.

a reply to: FreeOrigin

The question of consciousness, and/or awareness, in the plant kingdom, is not widely discussed.

Here is a repository of outstanding info, for alternative thinkers, and the nature of consciousness : Linky.

The plant kingdom is much more ancient, and possible way more evolved than the animal kingdom.
Maybe vegans and vegetarians have it wrong, and plants are more sentient than animals ?

The whole Bibliotecapleyades site is packed with so much interesting info, one could lose themselves in there for weeks !

a reply to: cooperton

No DM.

Here in front of everyone:

"Why the Moon is getting further away from Earth"

www.bbc.com...