Is the universe conscious of itself...

[outhouse]

To be fair, can't we say that we humans are a part of the universe being conscious of it self? As well as saying that some part of it (us) is mammalian?

You can. But as I stated it is a perversion of language taking the whole topic out of context.

The proper way to state such Is, "humans in the universe are conscious and aware" anything else is taking the term conscious out of context as the universe is not aware of anything.

It would be as nonsensical as stating the ocean is conscious because whales are conscious in it. The ocean and the universe is not conscious.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You can. But as I stated it is a perversion of language taking the whole topic out of context.

The proper way to state such Is, "humans in the universe are conscious and aware" anything else is taking the term conscious out of context as the universe is not aware of anything.

It would be as nonsensical as stating the ocean is conscious because whales are conscious in it. The ocean and the universe is not conscious.

It's just that humans are just as much a natural phenomenon as anything else in the universe, including stars and planets.

Think of it another way. If stars were conscious entities, would you say the Universe is partially conscious, or that the Universe is unconscious but has conscious stars in it? Whales aren't manifestations of the ocean. They simply occupy it. But humans don't simply occupy the Universe. We make up some degree of it, just like the stars and planets.

Or we can go to the other side of the spectrum and say that humans and other animals themselves as a whole aren't conscious. They just have conscious brains inside them, but the rest of them isn't conscious.

 

[RRex]

Is the universe conscious of itself...

I believe it is because I believe the universe is the physical manifestation of the creating entity.

 

[outhouse]

Or we can go to the other side of the spectrum and say that humans and other animals themselves as a whole aren't conscious.

No we cannot. People are conscious.

It's just that humans are just as much a natural phenomenon as anything else in the universe, including stars and planets.

True and non sequitur

We make up some degree of it, just like the stars and planets.

True and non sequitur



To IMPLY the universe is conscious, is to imply the universe itself is aware of itself. The universe is not alive, has no brain is not a mammal and has no conscious thought. ONLY living beings with brains do.

 

[allfoak]

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

No we cannot. People are conscious.

We have to agree that the brain is part of our overall being to say that. We define parts to a whole arbitrarily. The brain is basically where our consciousness is housed. Without it, we're not conscious. So in a sense, we could say that our brains are conscious, but the rest of us isn't.

True and non sequitur

To IMPLY the universe is conscious, is to imply the universe itself is aware of itself. The universe is not alive, has no brain is not a mammal and has no conscious thought. ONLY living beings with brains do.

So if, hypothetically, stars were conscious entities, would you say that the Universe is partially conscious, or that the Universe is unconscious but that it has conscious stars in it?

 

[outhouse]

We have to agree that the brain is part of our overall being to say that. We define parts to a whole arbitrarily. The brain is basically where our consciousness is housed. Without it, we're not conscious. So in a sense, we could say that our brains are conscious, but the rest of us isn't.

Agreed

So if, hypothetically, stars were conscious entities, would you say that the Universe is partially conscious, or that the Universe is unconscious but that it has conscious stars in it?

I would hypothetically state, stars are conscious within the universe as they are not physically tied to the universe.

Our brains only survive in ourselves, not outside it.

 

[Willamena]

We have to agree that the brain is part of our overall being to say that. We define parts to a whole arbitrarily. The brain is basically where our consciousness is housed. Without it, we're not conscious. So in a sense, we could say that our brains are conscious, but the rest of us isn't.

Um, no. That would be a category error. "Brain" is a physical structure, consciousness is an emergent property. Suffice it to point out that once you are dead there is no more consciousness, yet there's all the brain that there used to be.

 

[outhouse]

Um, no. That would be a category error. "Brain" is a physical structure, consciousness is an emergent property. Suffice it to point out that once you are dead there is no more consciousness, yet there's all the brain that there used to be.

The brain is basically where our consciousness is housed

Is factually correct despite your reply.

consciousness is an emergent property

Produced by the brain and in the brain.

A CPU processes code, once you are dead unplug it there is no more processing, yet there's all the CPU that there used to be.

So non sequitur

 

[Willamena]

The brain is basically where our consciousness is housed

Good for you, for contradicting it. Go us!

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I would hypothetically state, stars are conscious within the universe as they are not physically tied to the universe.

Okay fair enough. As long as your perspective is consistent, then I think it's a valid enough perspective. I don't think either perspective is more valid than the other though. Both seem like they would be useful perspectives which is often how I determine the validity of a perspective.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Um, no. That would be a category error. "Brain" is a physical structure, consciousness is an emergent property. Suffice it to point out that once you are dead there is no more consciousness, yet there's all the brain that there used to be.

I'm not sure how that goes against what I said. Emergent property or not, consciousness is located in the brain.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think either perspective is more valid than the other though

Well look at it like this. If it was proved the universe did have conscious thought on its own. IT would not SHOW the same context as being proposed by some in this thread as of todays understanding would it? Todays understanding is that people are conscious in the universe and that is why it is perceived that the universe is conscious.

That factual difference needs to be stated correctly so that people are not guessing or perverting what we do know.

This below is what we do know.


The universe is NOT conscious of itself and is not aware of itself.

People in the universe however are aware of a VERY SMALL portion of the universe.

Both of these sentence's carry meaning, are in context and hold credibility.


That cannot be said of the stand alone statement that, "the universe is conscious of itself" it is out of context, has no real meaning, and is not a credible statement under its own right.

 

[outhouse]

When you ask people if the universe is conscious most COULD think that the universe actually has conscious thought like the people in it.

I'm sure some people view it that literal way.

We need to separate actual meaning and context so we can make a credible statement regarding the state of the universe

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

If it was proved the universe did have conscious thought on its own.

What would that mean exactly? What would a conscious universe "on it's own" be like?

In one of your other posts, you said the universe factually doesn't have a brain. Meaning what exactly? What hypothetical condition would you consider the universe as possessing a brain? Some giant conscious structure with processing power floating out in the cosmos saying "I'm the central bulk of the Universe's conscious; the brain of the Universe!"

Point is, anyone here would agree that the universe has stars. It has planets. It has black holes. It also has multiple brains. Our brains.

Todays understanding is that people are conscious in the universe and that is why it is perceived that the universe is conscious.

I just don't see what's so wrong with that. Even if it's out of the desire to pervert language, as you put it, it doesn't mean it's any less valid. This perspective is actually quite literal. The universe literally has brains, just like it literally has planets.

This below is what we do know.

The universe is NOT conscious of itself and is not aware of itself.

It's not what we do and don't know. It's just two different ways of looking at the same thing. They're different perspectives.

People in the universe however are aware of a VERY SMALL portion of the universe.

We're aware of a very small portion of ourselves as well, in terms of known information vs unknown information. Your brain doesn't know every detail, or even 1% of the detail of your own body. You're not consciously aware of the position of every cell in your body. You may have a disease you're unaware of. Hell, there's still mysteries about the brain it self in medical science. The brain doesn't even know everything about it self, yet we casually agree that it's conscious of it self.

We say that we have self-awareness. What exactly about our selves are we aware of, and how much? We simply know we exists and have managed to uncover a few details to go with it.

Both of these sentence's carry meaning, are in context and hold credibility.

Let's establish a different context again. The context of what I'm saying is a context of looking at the universe with a very literal perspective. Literally, there are brains in it. You may say that it's not the same as it having brains, but then you have to agree that it doesn't have stars either. Stars are simply in it. And that it doesn't have black holes, galaxies, atoms, etc. Those things are just in it. Basically, the universe has nothing. But it doesn't contain nothing.

To have something denotes ownership or belonging. But now this is just getting into semantics, but the point I'm making is, perspectives have to be consistent. Meaning if you agree to one thing, you have to agree to other things (e.g. agreeing that the universe doesn't have stars like I said before).

And regarding ownership, that's a man-made concept we invented. But simply saying something is in something else is being more literal and probably less arbitrary. So with that said, there is a brain in the human body, and consciousness is a function of the brain.

 

[Straw Dog]

Only if we pervert language.

I did not realize that language was static in such a way that it could be perverted. Observe how it constantly changes. Language is organic.

The universe is not alive and has no brain and therefor, it is not conscious.

Actually, the universe has many brains. Are we all alien to the universe?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The answer is no. In order for some entity/system to be conscious/self-aware it must be capable of distinguishing itself from that which exists apart from it. By definition, the universe is all there is. There is nothing apart from it such that the universe can conceive of itself as a "self" (an "I") distinct from and identifiable as other than anything else.

 

[Etritonakin]

And from your perspective, you would rather that I forgo reasoning and evidences, in favour of your superstitious belief or fantasy that defy all sense of reality?

Sure, I could do that!

No. You should prove all things.

I am not trying to say you are not intelligent, but we each have a different perspective.

We are not actually aware of even what percentage of things we do and do not know. Incomplete evidence can lead to incorrect perception.

Many have evidence of what others believe to be fantasy.

Scientific method is useful, but having access to the perspective of the more knowledgable can expedite matters.

God exists -and has a complete perspective, but it is understandable that some are not yet of that perspective.

 

[outhouse]

Actually, the universe has many brains.

No the universe HAS people in it who possess brains. The universe itself does not have a brain.

 

[outhouse]

I did not realize

Exactly