-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the universe conscious of itself...
- Thread starter Eyasha
- Start date
Or the universe is conscious because at least some parts of it are conscious. The parts are not separate from the rest of it. The analogous situation is that humans are conscious, but are not conscious of every single cell and tissue and organ--that is, much of the universe may be unconscious compared to human awareness, but much of it is also likely subconscious compared to humans. And humans and any similar sentient beings are conscious, compared to humans. All are part of the universe. I frankly don't see how this is an unreasonable way of conceiving of things.
The question of whether or not the universe-as-a-whole is conscious is something that we humans will likely never be able to know. At least, at this point, I can't come up with an idea of we might be able to test such a proposition, or what might constitute evidence of consciousness at a high level, although perhaps someone else would come up with something.
outhouse
Atheistically
Unsubstantiated word play. The universe is factually not conscious because animals on one planet are.
Well, you have it your way, I'll have it mine. At least I'm able to entertain ideas without insulting someone else who actually holds it as a belief.
outhouse
Atheistically
What is insulting about saying you only have faith for belief, and not an ounce of evidence in support of said belief?
Had you said you guess, or it is your opinion, then so be it.
But you did not, you said the universe or parts of it are conscious. Why or how did you even come to that conclusion beyond imagination or fantasy and or mythology?
So, you apparently believe that humans are not part of the universe, and/or are not conscious?
outhouse
Atheistically
So, you apparently believe that humans are not part of the universe, and/or are not conscious?
The universe is factually not conscious because animals on one planet are.
And I disagree with your interpretation of the English language terms we are using. Specifically, I disagree with your assertion that "factually" the universe is not conscious. That's your interpretation, your understanding, your opinion. I am arguing that because humans--animals on one planet--ARE part of the universe and not separate from it, and ARE conscious, it is possible to argue that within the accepted meanings of the words we are using, part of the universe is conscious. Does it even matter whether or not the WHOLE universe is conscious? No. PART of the universe is conscious. In that sense, the universe IS conscious. Even if all the rest of it is not at all or sub-conscious, PART is; therefore it is.
Otherwise, by your reasoning, if the cells of a human are not conscious, then a human cannot be conscious. Unless I really misunderstood what you are saying..
outhouse
Atheistically
Which is nothing more then vague word play.
The proper context is that animals on one planet in the universe are known to be conscious. That in no part implies the universe is conscious. Poor attempt at word play and reasoning in my opinion.
Your taking an inane attempt to skirt context. Its like saying the human body is part conscious. It is inane.
I am curious as to when you became the arbiter of use of the English language? Virtually EVERTYTHING we say and write is "vague word play," if you want to approach it that way--and I know lawyers and philosophers who make a living demonstrating that most human communication is so imprecise as to be meaningless...or to mean things that people clearly did not intend. It is also possible to conceptualize things differently than the way you are insisting they be interpreted. I do not see anything in your statements that 1) demonstrates that my interpretation is implausible or incorrect, or 2) that your assertion that your interpretation is the only plausible way to think about this topic, and is in fact correct.
I'm not quite sure how this is inane. It certainly appears to me that the human body is part conscious--maybe it is ALL conscious, but the only way we can tell if it is conscious is when the brain is awake and active, and able to communicate. Without that, it appears that the rest of the body is not conscious. And even when the brain is awake, active, and able to communicate, the evidence would suggest that it is only PART conscious--there are many functions of the brain that we humans are not directly aware of and cannot control consciously. Even of the sensory input that we could be aware of, we are only conscious of a small part of it at any given moment. Therefore humans are only partially conscious. Where, exactly, is this "inane," and please be specific.
Of course, all this presumes certain definitions of what consciousness is, how it arises, etc. But since we haven't clarified ANY of the key terms we're using in this discussion, I would suggest that your contributions are more inane and vague word play than are mine; at least, I'm attempting to explain my point of view and asking you to please clarify your judgmental assertions.
outhouse
Atheistically
maybe when you understand why no one else uses that exact term, you will see the inane errors of its use.
outhouse
Atheistically
That is exactly where the problem lies. Your understanding.
You don't get to make up word salad and expect us to dance around it. No its word play and nothing more to cover up a error you were caught in and cannot recognize.
I see. you are unable to explain your position.
gnostic
The Lost One
But you have know way of knowing that.
You can't test it, you cannot find evidence to support such claims.
Second, scientists are only just beginning to see more than what the ancient and medieval people could see with their naked eyes, and lot of their knowledge (before the invention of the telescopes) are based on superstitions and false belief of what they know about the stars in the sky. They have no technology to know what they could see, and they knew nothing of the universe. To them (ancient and medieval astronomers), the whole world is just what they could see in their horizons, afraid to fall of the edge of the world, and the sky was a dome in which stars, planets and clouds move about in their sky. That the night and day is not caused by the movement of the sun from horizon to horizon (geocentric planetary motion model), that the Earth rotate, causing day and night to alter, depending on which side of the Earth is facing the Sun (heliocentric planetary motion model).
They used to think angels were the Sun, stars, moon and planets, or that the angels were involved in the movement of these heavenly bodies. But with increasing better technology, therefore building more reliable and better telescopes, we now know there are no angels or gods involved with the planetary objects or movement, or the stars. We are able to know why and explain why planets and stars move, and how gravity cause movement of not just the Earth rotating on its axis
But even today, there are people, mainly religious people, who are still use superstitions to explain what they don't understand, and saying that the universe, is just another example of more superstition.
Superstition because your conclusion is based on your belief, and not through logic and observable evidences.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
It looks to me like anthropomorphism.
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
I see. you are unable to explain your position.
My words were quite clear, and they stand academically. It must be that evidence I would like that has you running in fear.
The universe is not conscious.
Now if someone has evidence outside fantasy and imagination and mythology, please feel free to share that evidence with us.
Makaranda
Active Member
The statement is only sensible if you exclude all sentient beings from the universe. Sentient beings are a part of the universe, therefore your statement is "unsubstantiated word play". The universe is at least in part conscious because you are a part of the universe. Otherwise you are setting up a dualism between matter and consciousness, which is undesirable for you. The likelihood of life on others planets is also extremely high, so we can probably predict that there is sentience\consciousness in some form or another all over the universe.
To say "The universe is conscious" is certainly more accurate than to say "The universe is not conscious", even if the former is vague and open to abuse, the latter is just wrong.
This statement appears to me to be self-contradictory.
"factually", what a hoot.
-Edited
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Sentient beings are conscious, but there is no evidence that consciousness extends beyond sentient beings.
The problem I have with "the universe is conscious of itself" is that it implies the universe is like a sentient being with self-awareness, and there is no evidence for that.