Does the universe have consciousness?

[Guitar's Cry]

I believe it does end at our brains, yes. But there are key parts of our brain that, if damaged, leads to the entire destruction of our consciousness. Same with a computer.

Our consciousness becomes drastically altered as well if we lose sensory data; becoming blind or deaf, for instance. Or any kind of sensory deprivation.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Our consciousness becomes drastically altered as well if we lose sensory data; becoming blind or deaf, for instance. Or any kind of sensory deprivation.

Yep, that's true.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yep, that's true.

Also consider that consciousness appears to have arisen as a result of how the Universe has been formed. In a sense, the Universe "grew" consiousness through the interactions of energy and matter.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Is the universe aware of its own existence ?
3: I do believe the universe is a part of God, so yes I do believe it is aware of its own existence, meaning it can do certain things with a purpose. (not that I understand fully how it is possible)

The non-dualist hindus believe that the Consciousness or Brahman ( as explained to me by @ajay0 ) does have a mind or intelligence of ITS own, even when IT is not in an embodied/finite state.
Before creation/manifestation of the cosmos occurs, IT can think how IT will present Itself as matter or in which anthropomorphic form (avatar) will IT appear on this earthly plane.

I'm not sure whether Consciousness is aware if ITS own existence. Since IT has a mind, it is quite possible for IT to be aware of ITS own presence. But followers of non-dualistic hinduism has something else to say. They usually believe that even though IT has a mind, IT can never observe Itself. In other words, consciousness being an observer/subject, can never be the observed/object.

As long as we (as embodied beings/false self/ego) keep observing objects that are out there, we remain in a plane of duality (observer and observed).
But upon enlightenment, when the false self is dropped, all sorts of duality vanishes. Then we dwell in a non-dual state of pure Consciousness.
Since in this non-dual state, there is none other than ME / Consciousness / the True Self, there is no one else to be observed.

Again, coming back to your question ... Can I, the Consciousness be aware of my own existence (whether in an embodied state or disembodied state)?
This I cannot answer at the moment, since i'm still a student of non-dualism. I hope others well versed in Advaita Vedanta can answer this question.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Also consider that consciousness appears to have arisen as a result of how the Universe has been formed. In a sense, the Universe "grew" consiousness through the interactions of energy and matter.

I don't believe in universal intent. Like I said in another thread, to me the universe didn't 'intend' for life any more than water 'intends' to run downhill.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I don't believe in universal intent. Like I said in another thread, to me the universe didn't 'intend' for life any more than water 'intends' to run downhill.

I didn't mean to imply intent. Whether it was purposeful or not, consciousness occurred in the Universe. The natural processes of the Universe developing the way it did produced consciousness.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I didn't mean to imply intent. Whether it was purposeful or not, consciousness occurred in the Universe. The natural processes of the Universe developing the way it did produced consciousness.

I agree. Consciousness exists within the universe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Also consider that consciousness appears to have arisen as a result of how the Universe has been formed. In a sense, the Universe "grew" consiousness through the interactions of energy and matter.

Without a consciousness to observe it, the material universe would not be manifest at all; at best, there would exist only the probability of phenomena materialising in a particular time and place. Until it is observed, the substance of the natural world, exists only as a probability in a superposition. Quantum physics tells us this.

The material universe had to create consciousness in order to manifest the material universe. This is the paradox on which the illusory world is predicated.

Our human consciousness is limited by perspective; we observe and process the world without, from within the world. We look out, but what we see, what we process of the limited set of variables we have access to, we process within ourselves, within our minds. We conceptualise the world as if we were outside it, but we are not outside it; we are in the world, and the world is in us.

The question we should be asking ourselves, and which I think @Conscious thoughts is asking in the OP, is this; is there a universal perspective, a God’s eye view? And if there is, how can we access or join with it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It could maybe be explained in the sense that everything has some form of life within it, call it energy or life force.'
And so it is the same with the whole universe, to me, it feels alive, I know to say something feels alive is seen as a nonsensical way of describing it, but that is the best I can do at the moment. It is like when I speak out loud and ask the universe for guidance it does answer me and guide me (this is where God comes into the picture for me)
I will try to write a new OP later on this topic because to me it is interesting to go deeper into it.

I would like to go deeper but a lot of questions it's hard for you to answer. I think speaking in a mystical way makes what you say foreign and hard to talk about. For example, describing God is difficult so going further to explain what you mean when someone asks about God gets cut off.

How to say, it's trying to find balance between spiritual and mundane...minimalist mindset to find common ground and language. On RF that is.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I would like to go deeper but a lot of questions it's hard for you to answer. I think speaking in a mystical way makes what you say foreign and hard to talk about. For example, describing God is difficult so going further to explain what you mean when someone asks about God gets cut off.

How to say, it's trying to find balance between spiritual and mundane...minimalist mindset to find common ground and language. On RF that is.

That is what I trying to do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Does the universe have consciousness?"
Universe is like a balloon. Press it somewhere and you get the reaction in all parts. Does the balloon have consciousness?

 

[firedragon]

"Does the universe have consciousness?"
Universe is like a balloon. Press it somewhere and you get the reaction in all parts. Does the balloon have consciousness?

I thought you spoke of Brahman or the brahman with no quality, vis a vis, nirguna, which you claimed is "energy", can that not be a consciousness? If not some kind of consciousness, what is this being?

 

[Aupmanyav]

That Brahman is eternal, is form-free, is not involved and is unchanging are properties of Brahman. Brahman is not completely 'nirguna'. These are its inherent properties. Others like, it requires a worship, is involved, are properties imposed by people. I do not accept that. Energy (take electricity, heat, light, magnetism, gravity, etc.) is not conscious. The interactions are but illusions.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Who can say? One think is for sure. If a mosquito bites it in Andromeda, it might take millions of years before it realizes it.

ciao

- viole

What is a million years in the context of eternity?

And what is a year, beyond the context of planet earth?

 

[Clara Tea]

This question may have been asked before, but

Does the universe have consciousness?

If we believe that God is everywhere, maybe the universe has a brain, and that brain is God? Maybe there are complex connections of strings of matter throughout the universe, and those establish memory links, just as the neurons of the brain do in our heads?

Or, maybe I am wildly speculating without any proof or research?

 

[Spirit of Light]

If we believe that God is everywhere, maybe the universe has a brain, and that brain is God? Maybe there are complex connections of strings of matter throughout the universe, and those establish memory links, just as the neurons of the brain do in our heads?

Or, maybe I am wildly speculating without any proof or research?

I think your answer holds value to it, personally, I have not yet a full answer to the question asked in OP.

 

[Clara Tea]

That Brahman is eternal, is form-free, is not involved and is unchanging are properties of Brahman. Brahman is not completely 'nirguna'. These are its inherent properties. Others like, it requires a worship, is involved, are properties imposed by people. I do not accept that. Energy (take electricity, heat, light, magnetism, gravity, etc.) is not conscious. The interactions are but illusions.

Gravity is a field...a consequence of warped space (often that warpage is caused by mass). However, there is potential energy, and that can be caused by height and a gravitational field. If the universe is like a gigantic brain, that brain might require worship (or at least blind obedience to make sure that people follow the teachings of God).

 

[Clara Tea]

Yes, of course the universe has consciousness. *WE* are that consciousness.

A more relevant question is whether there is any consciousness other than what exists on Earth (and maybe other planets).

Do I think that the universe as a whole is conscious? No. Too large for meaningful communication between parts of it.

Many issues of physics are not understood.

Spooky action is about quantum entanglement (the spin of one particle align with another, and it doesn't matter how far apart they are, and it doesn't require any time to convey that information). So, if spooky action works instantaneously, perhaps the universe could communicate between different parts meaningfully?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-...spooky-action-at-a-distance-is-real-20210720/

Please read about spooky action in the link above.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But that synchronization makes perfect sense if you have even a moderate knowledge of physics -- or even an appreciation of the fact that there are "laws," meaning relationships between how things respond to how they are affected, that describe the workings of pretty much everything. Even at fundamental levels.

It's a bit like thinking of a pool table: if you hit the cue ball just so, and it makes contact at such a speed and such an angle with the 8 ball, the 8 ball's response (where and how fast it will go) is completely determined.

Well no actually. At the fundamental level, the classical model of Newtonian physics does not serve.

“It has become increasingly evident in recent times, that nature works on a very different plan [from classical mechanics]. Her fundamental laws do not govern the world as it appears in our mental picture in any very direct way, but instead they form a substratum of which we cannot form a mental picture without introducing irrelevancies.”

-Paul Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics

“The certainties of classical physics are just probabilities. The well defined and solid picture of the world given by the old physics is an illusion.”

- Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland.

Regarding your pool table analogy, you raise some very interesting questions by mentioning determinacy. I ask you to bear with me a bit. One question we ask ourselves may be, from what point is the progress of the ball determined? From the moment the white leaves the cue, from the moment the cue strikes the white, or from the moment the player picks up the cue?

The path of the ball can only be absolutely determined if we have access to all the factors, all the potentially limiting disturbances, acting on all the balls in play. For example, the weight of the white, the size of the eight ball, and the length and weight of the cue, when they all left the factory. Now we would probably decide that these variables were negligible and could be discounted; the accompanying disturbance of the impact of these factors is unlikely to affect the outcome of the incident in any significant way. The player himself, however, would certainly take some account of these variables, either consciously or unconsciously. If he is using his own cue, he is familiar with it’s length and heft. He knows instinctively, how straight it is.

Such are some of the variables acting on the pool table (which may or may not be a completely smooth flat surface), and the balls whose motion we consider to be determined. But what, again, of all the millions of hidden variables and accompanying disturbances acting on the living organism, and the consciousness of the organism, which wields the cue? From what point are they determined, and, ultimately, by what? After all, the organism wielding the cue is formed, at the fundamental level, from the same atomic and sub atomic particles from which the cue, the balls, and the table are formed.

What we might then ask ourselves is, what conducts the entire molecular dance? Is it random, or determined? Or are both randomness and determinacy each functions of our own, limited perspective? Finally, our perspective being necessarily limited and limiting, we must surely ask ourselves does there exist, even as an abstract concept, a limitless perspective? Is there a God’s eye view, even if only in the mind of man?

 

[Clara Tea]

Is it conscious spooky action?

Unknown. But unknown means that it might be.