Could Consciousness Be the Universe's Self Awareness?

[Willamena]

Why is "size" an appropriate measure of "significance?" You say the sheer size of the universe makes human beings insignificant... GK Chesterton has a great response to this type of thinking:

"Why should a man surrender his dignity to the size of the solar system anymore than to the size of a whale? If mere size proves the image of God, than a whale may be the image of God.....You choose to have an emotion about the largeness of the cosmos.. why not about its smallness? Anything however large, can be conceived of as small"

Any meaningful insignificance or significance is invariably making the world about us. Both are hubris.

 

[`mud]

Thinking of 'consciousness' versus 'conscious', with the cognizance in effect.
Then when comparing the lack of cognizance when a person is un-conscious, wouldn't the consciousness be affected ?
Meaning, what would the difference be between the two states over longish times.
Is the un-conscious mind totally aware of it's incapacities, even though it's not cognizent.
I feel that we are comparing the states of mind on two different levels, reactive vs. subsantive.
But....I have no idea of what I am talking about here...just chipping in.
We are really, really tiny in comparison to the fractional piece of the solar system called Earth, let alone the Cosmos itself.
I guess one could say....it all in our minds....did that rock move....did I ?
~
'mud

 

[BSM1]

What are your thoughts?

I'm not claiming anything about what consciousness is or where it comes from, it's not part of the topic. I am talking about the actual abstract 'consciousness'. The fact that we are part of the universe, and have consciousness around it, doesn't that mean consciousness is the universe observing itself, which is self awareness?

And if so, doesn't that necessarily mean that the universe is conscious?

I didn't read all the previous answers, and someone may have already said this for more eloquently than I, but in your opinion would the universe exist if we were not conscious of it by some definition?

 

[Yerda]

Depends on what it means to you, "to exist."

Can you say that something you know nothing about exists? Of course not; until you know it exists, and then you can say, "Oh, well, it was always here, just as it is." The human beast makes up stories, like that, all the time.

When I knew nothing of you, did you exist?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is not to say that consciousness itself is odd and perhaps significant, regardless of what it comes from. A species living on a rock, or a rock living on a species, it matters not. Consciousness, as far as we know, is rare.

This isn't really a definition. The concepts (?) are so nebulous that they are useless.

I think that you're using the term "consciousness" because you like the way the word sounds - or the way it makes you feel to see it - not because of any durable meaning associated with the word.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What are your thoughts?

I'm not claiming anything about what consciousness is or where it comes from, it's not part of the topic. I am talking about the actual abstract 'consciousness'. The fact that we are part of the universe, and have consciousness around it, doesn't that mean consciousness is the universe observing itself, which is self awareness?

And if so, doesn't that necessarily mean that the universe is conscious?

That depends upon if you think consciousness is the only venue for awareness.

 

[Ouroboros]

What are your thoughts?

I'm not claiming anything about what consciousness is or where it comes from, it's not part of the topic. I am talking about the actual abstract 'consciousness'. The fact that we are part of the universe, and have consciousness around it, doesn't that mean consciousness is the universe observing itself, which is self awareness?

And if so, doesn't that necessarily mean that the universe is conscious?

Not necessarily that the universe as a whole and of itself is conscious, but parts of it can be (like us). It also means that the universe has the potential to produce consciousness, and we don't know all the forms it could take.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I didn't read all the previous answers, and someone may have already said this for more eloquently than I, but in your opinion would the universe exist if we were not conscious of it by some definition?

That is perhaps one of the most deep questions in philosophy. I personally agree with those who say everything exists as energy, but does not have concrete existence until someone is aware of it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This isn't really a definition. The concepts (?) are so nebulous that they are useless.

I think that you're using the term "consciousness" because you like the way the word sounds - or the way it makes you feel to see it - not because of any durable meaning associated with the word.

How do you think I am defining it?

And I use "consciousness" to refer to the self as well, because that's commonly how it is used. To call what I speak of "the experiencer of consciousness" or anything of the sort would just created unneeded confusion.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not necessarily that the universe as a whole and of itself is conscious, but parts of it can be (like us). It also means that the universe has the potential to produce consciousness, and we don't know all the forms it could take.

But if consciousness comes from parts of the universe, doesn't that mean the universe itself produces a consciousness for itself?

It's kind of like saying that a mountain is a head and the creatures living in it are its eyes. That might sound absurd, but it is only a poor, but the best, example. To make it make more sense, imagine if those creatures are actually a part of the mountain.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How do you think I am defining it?

And I use "consciousness" to refer to the self as well, because that's commonly how it is used. To call what I speak of "the experiencer of consciousness" or anything of the sort would just created unneeded confusion.

That's just it. I don't think that you're defining it because you don't set meaningful boundaries to the definition. It's applied so broadly that it can mean anything.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's just it. I don't think that you're defining it because you don't set meaningful boundaries to the definition. It's applied so broadly that it can mean anything.

I don't see how it can mean anything. The way I'm speaking of it is simply experience, animation, awareness, and things of the sort. Those things might not be exactly the same, but they are not different enough to make the word meaningless. Any of them work with my question

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't see how it can mean anything.

I cannot express the delight I experience at being right.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I cannot express the delight I experience at being right.

I suppose the way I worded that post can mean different things.

I don't see how its definition is loose enough to where it has too many definitions to work with

 

[DawudTalut]

What are your thoughts?

I'm not claiming anything about what consciousness is or where it comes from, it's not part of the topic. I am talking about the actual abstract 'consciousness'. The fact that we are part of the universe, and have consciousness around it, doesn't that mean consciousness is the universe observing itself, which is self awareness?

And if so, doesn't that necessarily mean that the universe is conscious?

Peace be on you.
Universe has some kind of awareness, according to Holy Quran, that is why it is said:

[ch59:v25] He is Allah, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.

[ch24:v42] Hast thou not seen that it is Allah Whose praises all who are in the heavens and the earth celebrate, and so do the birds with their wings outspread? Each one knows his own mode of prayer and praise. And Allah knows well what they do.

alislam.org/quran

 

[Ouroboros]

But if consciousness comes from parts of the universe, doesn't that mean the universe itself produces a consciousness for itself?

Not necessarily.

The universe can produce atoms, but that doesn't make the universe an atom.

It's kind of like saying that a mountain is a head and the creatures living in it are its eyes. That might sound absurd, but it is only a poor, but the best, example. To make it make more sense, imagine if those creatures are actually a part of the mountain.

I know what you mean, but there's a small distinction, I think.

The Internet contains pages, but it doesn't make the Internet a page.

The Universe can produce consciousness, but it doesn't mean the Universe as a whole is conscious. ("As a whole" is important there.) But of course, the Universe has consciousness, in the form of having conscious minds in it, so indirectly or on a indirect way it has. Somethin' like that.

On the other hand, if the Universe as a whole was conscious (or aware of itself), we wouldn't know. My feeling about consciousness is that it can take on infinite forms, and we can't understand or put ourselves in the mind of other minds on other levels. (Does that make sense at all? It's bit late here right now. LOL!)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not necessarily.

The universe can produce atoms, but that doesn't make the universe an atom.

I am not sure how that is like what I am trying to say.

Relating it to that; "If there is a thing consisting of the universe that can produce atoms, then the universe can produce atoms." Because "If there is a part of the universe that produces consciousness, the universe produces consciousness."

Our entire body is built from the universe, is never apart from the universe, we are always one with the universe. If our body makes consciousness, and if our body is the universe, doesn't that mean the universe makes, and thus has consciousness? That our consciousness is the universe's self awareness?

I know what you mean, but there's a small distinction, I think.

The Internet contains pages, but it doesn't make the Internet a page.

I might be misinterpreting you, but how does your example represent the same thing I am trying to say? To call an internet a page would be to, in my scenario, call the universe consciousness. But I am not saying the universe IS consciousness, but that is HAS consciousness.

The Universe can produce consciousness, but it doesn't mean the Universe as a whole is conscious. ("As a whole" is important there.) But of course, the Universe has consciousness, in the form of having conscious minds in it, so indirectly or on a indirect way it has. Somethin' like that.

But we are not only in the universe, we are of the universe. If you agree that the body is built from the universe, and that our body is what produces consciousness, doesn't that mean the universe produces consciousness?

Would you not say that you can see when actually it is only the eyes that can see?

On the other hand, if the Universe as a whole was conscious (or aware of itself), we wouldn't know. My feeling about consciousness is that it can take on infinite forms, and we can't understand or put ourselves in the mind of other minds on other levels. (Does that make sense at all? It's bit late here right now. LOL!)

Lost me at "other levels", but hey at least I got until the last two words

 

[Robert.Evans]

What are your thoughts?

I'm not claiming anything about what consciousness is or where it comes from, it's not part of the topic. I am talking about the actual abstract 'consciousness'. The fact that we are part of the universe, and have consciousness around it, doesn't that mean consciousness is the universe observing itself, which is self awareness?

And if so, doesn't that necessarily mean that the universe is conscious?

Yes to the title. Science theory says it, scripture says it. No problem

 

[Robert.Evans]

But, if the universe is One body, then isn't it irrelevant that there are parts that are conscious? A brain may make consciousness to animate a human body which is composed on unconscious things.

There is a consciousness that projects from the universe's body, and thus the body itself is conscious, regardless of other objects that aren't conscious composing it.

I agree. It is much like saying is your foot conscious? The answer is no in one sense, and yet it is part of an invisible mind which is conscious, and therefore aware of the foot. We are part of the big bang and are aware of that. Even electrons are supposed to be connected, 'entangled'. No surprise really if all things as Goswami and Hagelin say are consciousness.

 

[Willamena]

Hmm is there a distinction between what you are trying to say here and Berkeley's philosophy? For Berkeley, nothing exists outside of your mind. For to assert that something does exist outside of or independent of your mind is ironically to have an idea of what that something is, and thus you would contradict yourself, for the 'thing' you posited is not really independent of your mind since you have an idea of it.

I remember going over the various faults with Berkeley's philosophy, but unfortunately I don't remember any of them off the top of my head. Anyhow, is what you're proposing essentially the same as Berkeley's philosophy? I suppose 1 key difference could be that you are saying there is essentially no difference between man and the universe, whereas I don't think that realization plays a major role in Berkeley's philosophy.

I haven't read Berkeley, so I can't say if I emulate him, but what you describe sounds right. Just so. I am entirely comfortable with that, "To exist is to be known to exist."

My problem, then, with the assertion, "Nothing exists outside of your mind," the way you've worded it, would be that there is no "outside" or "in the" to the mind, at least no division that is real. There is only mind. "In the" has to be dropped.

The tree.. on the hill.. across the street.. seen through the window.. all bits of that sentence are mind.

The natural implication, then, is that nothing is real, but it's only by a convention that we've been taught to equate existence with truth and actuality (phyiscal rendering) such that "all is mind" reduces to "nothing is real." Existence, in its essence, is the state of something, and thing, in its essence, serves only grammatically to portray existence.