leibowde84
Veteran Member
I would say that the United states is aware of itself because it's citizens are. I do not believe that animals other than humans are conscious of their respective country though.
-
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
outhouse
Atheistically
Agreed.
Sorry brother I don't think a territory is even semi conscious because animals in it are.
I understand the argument, and its philosophical at best making the statement completely worthless and rhetorical.
The universe is not aware of itself like the human mind. Nor is the USA.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
since when was like the human mind a requirement.
outhouse
Atheistically
The only thing conscious is factually the thought in animals brains correct?
The universe is not aware of itself like any mind. [better
]
leibowde84
Veteran Member
would you agree that part of the universe is aware of the entirety of the universe?or maybe better put that part of the universe is aware of the universe in general? by the way, this is definitely a philosophical argument.I do however disagree about it being a waste of time.The only thing conscious is factually the thought in animals brains correct?
The universe is not aware of itself like any mind. [better
outhouse
Atheistically
Nope.
I don't see any evidence the universe is aware because people on this planet are.
No, but
I see the math involved, but I would simple say, people in the universe are aware so that I could accurately convey truth in meaning.
Understood.
It can be worded against, and that is my reasoning. That and giving in to that line of reasoning leaves interpretation open up to let pseudoscience and religious beliefs like pantheism in to pervert the actual context.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Fair enough.
outhouse
Atheistically
leibowde84
Veteran Member
No disrespect. I agree with you.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Another thread asked if any of these debates have changed my beliefs.
This thread made me fully realize that "God" is everything -and everything is conscious of itself.
"I AM" is everything aware of itself.
I would say "Yes" -we are a product of the universe becoming conscious of itself -except that I do not believe the universe is "everything".
I see the singularity called the Big Bang as similar to a seed which became what it would based on its composition.
We cannot know if it was the first seed -or one of many blossoms on a vine/the first of many -nor can we know the nature of the soil in which it was planted.
Omniscience and omnipotence would require complete access, sensory perception, processing ability, decision and control.
I have often considered the various bodies of (the Word of) God -and how we are made in the image of God.
We have mobility, senses, creativity and the ability to manipulate. We access, perceive, process, decide and control -but in microcosm.
I do not believe that we are the first instance of the universe becoming aware of itself -and we are not very aware of the universe.
I do not believe we could have been produced at all unless everything was aware of itself.
There was never nothing. Everything that exists is a reconfiguraiton of everything that has always existed.
There was also never no one. There was always one. One decided to become many -to subdivide and increase.
There must have always been someone to act upon that which could be acted upon.
God is one. God created. God became many. Many created. Many became one. Many became God.
We are learning to build virtual worlds based on 1 or 0, On or Off, Yes or No, if you will.......
but not something and nothing -rather..... something and something else.
"I" and "AM".............................................
signal and report.
That we are aware, is evidence the universe is in some way aware. We are that evidence.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I think that's a key observation. We are the only means we know of, by which the universe is aware of itself, can contemplate it's own existence..
Many cosmologists have remarked, on how extraordinary it is that we can understand the universe at all- that it so lends itself to our exploration and learning, tests our curiosity and ingenuity to it's limits.
I don't think this was an accident
But what is the evidence that it was not an accident?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
In weighing up the probabilities of each.
Obviously we can't nail down precise figures, but the odds of a randomly composed singularity- accidentally developing it's own consciousness to ponder itself with? probably not too high
Basing our estimates on what? We have a sample of 1, in a universe that may be (and probably is) infinite.
And we don't know if this is the "only" universe, or if there are an infinite number of them, and what their characteristics would be.
Even if highly improbable, given infinity, it would be highly improbable that we are the only one--but even if we were the only one, it would still not be evidence of intention and a creator, any more than it would be evidence of random chance, and accident. And even if there are many, many other species across the universe, it does not negate the possibility of intention, nor prove nor disprove "accident."
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
The number of possible compositions of information and matter, that do NOT develop their own consciousness, is rather large. Tweak the universal constants infinitesimally, and you don't even get space time
Which is why some propose a multiverse as you mention, an infinite number of randomly composed universes to account for the chance existence of this one.
Not impossible I suppose, but I agree with Krauss on Hawking "If your theory involves an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'
I also agree with Hawking on Krauss "That moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard!"
But we are still limited at this time to a single instance: this planet and this solar system, which we have not investigated sufficiently to disprove the independent existence of life on other bodies, much less those elsewhere in the galaxy and the universe. Because of the laws of nature, it is not exactly random that matter can become animate and sentient: thus, planets form around stars, and we would expect some of them to be similar to earth, and therefore hospitable to life. We have detected such planets, but we haven't detected life or sentience yet, so we really have no idea on the frequency of environments where life can and has developed and evolved.
I don't disagree at all. What I'm thinking about is that "science" in many ways has made a conscious decision that answers that involve tautology, paradox, or infinite regress are a priori not acceptable as answers for science, ala Krauss. I am skeptical of that position; maybe reality is "elephants and turtles all the way down." Maybe the universe is here only because we are here to observe it. Maybe the universe is because it does not "not exist." Maybe the universe really is stranger than humans CAN imagine.
But the question is, can we "prove" such a proposition? I'm not sure how we would ever do so, but I'm fairly confident that arguing probabilities from a sample of 1, or slightly more than one, when the visible universe is as large as it is and may in fact be infinite is not going to be convincing. And, developing a model that doesn't end up in tautology, paradox or infinite regress does not prove that reality isn't one of those problems for logic, it just means that we can construct a model that describes reality well enough to avoid those problems.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
True, and it's never going to be possible to verify that no other intelligent life exists, though I'm not sure the math is looking too promising. It's a fascinating question though, because either way, alone or not, the answer is profound!
I mostly agree with that also, though the infinite regression paradox applies equally to any proposed 'cause' for the universe. ("Where did that come from?") so it's a wash in a sense, and it is also a moot point- because here we are, so one way or another there is obviously a solution?
But what is NOT even is the capacity for chance v creative intelligence to design all we see around us- difficult to nail down figures yes, but they are different.
By definition the origins of nature must be 'super-natural'- in the sense they must transcend that which they create. Yet whatever created the universe must also be natural itself to exist and act on nature...
I think creative intelligence has the best shot at solving this paradox, because it is both natural in existence and super-natural in it's capability, it can do what nature alone never can, make nature do what it otherwise would not, is arguably the only means by which anything can truly be created, as opposed to being a natural / inevitable consequence?[/quote][/QUOTE]
Saint_of_Me
Member
The Universe has no self-awareness or consciousness. Or sentience. Or intelligence.
Why?
Because in order for a sentient being to be imbued with those gifts, it must posses a mind. A brain. A central nervous system. This is the hardware for the "software" (like the mind is the software of the hardware brain) that is needed to facilitate any semblance of self-awareness.
And obviously, the known Universe is bereft of any such thing. It is, rather, a dynamic system of natural elements. Gases, stars burning nuclear fusion. Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Helium, giving rise to the heavier elements. But no more "aware" or intelligent than a bonfire in your backyard.
What gave rise to "us" was an occurrence of abio-genesis on one tiny planet in one tiny solar system in the backwater of one out of billions of Galaxies, some 3 BYA. Then, materialistic and purely natural biological evolution began its mechanations. Giving rise to multi-celled organisms, tiny aquatic animals; fish, reptiles, mammals, and finally primates and then humanoid primates we call homo sapiens. Us. You and I.
No Cosmic Intelligence required. No god. they're simply not needed in the equation.
Hope this helps. If you have any more questions on the Universe, or Cosmology in general I'l be glad to answer them. Thanks!
https://www.quora.com/If-the-universe-is-not-self-aware-yet-why-not