Is the universe conscious of itself...

[gnostic]

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.

I agreed...but you have to admit that the universe that's conscious, would make a better or interesting fiction, like when writing sci-fi stories or starting up some new-agey cults.

 

[Etritonakin]

I agreed...but you have to admit that the universe that's conscious, would make a better or interesting fiction, like when writing sci-fi stories or starting up some new-agey cults.

Yet, we are proof that all of those things are present in the universe.

We are composed of those things. We are the product of those things.

It is very possible for the physical universe -matter, energy/forces -to both provide feedback to an awareness and be that by which a decisive mind acts.

 

[gnostic]

Yet, we are proof that all of those things are present in the universe.

That's people and animal with brains have consciousness.

The universe itself, like the gases, stars, planets, don't have consciousness.

Of course, primitive people have been known to give human-like aspects to inanimate objects with spirits, and possibly worship them, but that's purely SUPERSTITION.

And like I have said many times before, superstition is the result of one's ignorance and fear. Christians and Jews used to think the stars were actually angels, and these stars could sing. Examples of these silly superstitions can be found by read God's reply in JOB 38 to 41.

...when the morning stars sang together
and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?

Bildad, one of Job's companions said this about God:

If even the moon is not bright
and the stars are not pure in his sight,

What do the author mean by that?

It is clearly spoken (and written) from a person's point of view, millennia before the invention of the telescope. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, why would he need to look at the moon or stars, with one not being "bright" and others not being "pure"?

If God exist, like the way he does in the book of JOB, then he is ignorant and superstitious as the author who wrote that book in the 1st millennium BCE, or the readers who literally believe in such nonsense.

For centuries, believers used to believe that angels control the movements of the sun, stars, moon and even the clouds, but the last several centuries, we know that such belief are based on superstitions of the past.

We know now that the sun and stars have no consciousness and no mind.

And what we can see today of the universe, with all the telescopes, radio telescopes and space observatories, what we can observe out there is just the tiniest of fraction of what is really out there.

You and I know only even the tiniest of that tiny fraction, and yet you can positively claim that the universe is conscious, and has a mind of its own?

Wow! Then you must be an all-knowing god to have such conviction about the entire universe. Should I pray to you and your vast knowledge of the universe? Would you like me to sacrifice a goat to you, O'wise one?

 

[Looncall]

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.

How do you determine that any of this is true? Please show your workings.

 

[Etritonakin]

That's people and animal with brains have consciousness.

The universe itself, like the gases, stars, planets, don't have consciousness.

Of course, primitive people have been known to give human-like aspects to inanimate objects with spirits, and possibly worship them, but that's purely SUPERSTITION.

And like I have said many times before, superstition is the result of one's ignorance and fear. Christians and Jews used to think the stars were actually angels, and these stars could sing. Examples of these silly superstitions can be found by read God's reply in JOB 38 to 41.



Bildad, one of Job's companions said this about God:



What do the author mean by that?

It is clearly spoken (and written) from a person's point of view, millennia before the invention of the telescope. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, why would he need to look at the moon or stars, with one not being "bright" and others not being "pure"?

If God exist, like the way he does in the book of JOB, then he is ignorant and superstitious as the author who wrote that book in the 1st millennium BCE, or the readers who literally believe in such nonsense.

For centuries, believers used to believe that angels control the movements of the sun, stars, moon and even the clouds, but the last several centuries, we know that such belief are based on superstitions of the past.

We know now that the sun and stars have no consciousness and no mind.

And what we can see today of the universe, with all the telescopes, radio telescopes and space observatories, what we can observe out there is just the tiniest of fraction of what is really out there.

You and I know only even the tiniest of that tiny fraction, and yet you can positively claim that the universe is conscious, and has a mind of its own?

Wow! Then you must be an all-knowing god to have such conviction about the entire universe. Should I pray to you and your vast knowledge of the universe? Would you like me to sacrifice a goat to you, O'wise one?

I don't think that was was meant in Job, but also that it is not important to the point.

My point was not that things like stars have individual consciousnesses, but that a universal consciousness could employ the same sorts of things we do to sense and act -but on a larger scale.

Our human minds initially acted through our bodies, and we increasingly create what are essentially extensions of our bodies, to sense more and act upon more.

We do not know enough about our environment to say it impossible for a conscious to sense by it or act from within it.

Our own capabilities are increasing. Our own minds are able to sense more by various extensions, and we are increasingly able to act through our environment.

We can communicate over long distances by sending and receiving signals by electrons through atoms, etc -which can be likened to a nervous system.

We are beginning to understand things on a subatomic level, but we really have no clue what is possible.

 

[Etritonakin]

How do you determine that any of this is true? Please show your workings.

I will try to address this later -I wrote quite a bit, so addressing every point might take a while.

Also, my "beliefs" have changed over time, so I do not know that everything I believe is true -and constantly question it.

My beliefs are as models which are based on some knowns -possibilities -some assumed/probable variables -and change as I learn more.

I know that universal adherence to the commandments would make the world a wonderful place -most of the rest is just awesome to think about and will prove itself eventually.

 

[Milton Platt]

Something I've been thinking about lately
Are we just a product of the universe becoming conscious of itself?

Since we are a part of the universe, you could say that a part of the universe is self aware, I guess. But that is not the same as stating that the universe as a whole has some sort of consciousness.

 

[Etritonakin]

Conscious of itself....

Consciousness...
1.
the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2.
the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people:
the moral consciousness of a nation.
3.
full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life:
to regain consciousness after fainting.
4.
awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge:
consciousness of wrongdoing.
5.
concern, interest, or acute awareness:
class consciousness.
6.
the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.
7.
Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.

 

[Noa]

To the OP: I see no reason to consider the universe a singular entity in the sense that sentient self-consciousness implies. So, no.

 

[Etritonakin]

We are consciousnesses which are the result of arrangements of matter -or some sort of stuff -so it is not impossible that the stuff the universe and beyond is made of has some sort of similar arrangement which allows it to perceive itself, change itself consciously, etc.

 

[outhouse]

Since we are a part of the universe, you could say that a part of the universe is self aware, I guess.

The only people stating such are doing so for alternative reasons.

FACT the universe does not have a brain, so factually the universe is not conscious.

As I have stated multiple times, the correct statement is that the universe has animals that are conscious in it.

 

[Etritonakin]

How do you determine that any of this is true? Please show your workings.

Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.

It is said we are made from the dust of the stars -and while it may be that stars themselves are not conscious individuals, we know that arrangements of things which exist in the universe enable consciousness -and that consciousness is able to act through a body which is also an arrangement of things which exist in the universe.

We see that our bodies can produce other bodies within them -which eventually become external to them -but are still composed of the same general stuff and are part of the whole which exists.

By creating extensions to our bodies, we are able to affect things which are smaller, larger, farther away, etc....
It is also possible that those extensions may eventually be incorporated into a body.
Just as various living things have different abilities due to that which arranges them -active camouflage, production of electricity or light, etc.... so might things be arranged to do just about anything.

So -it is not inconceivable that a consciousness could work through all that is the universe -perhaps beyond. If anything may be incorporated into a body and manipulated by a consciousness, the universe itself could already be a body manipulated by a consciousness.

Some believe the human consciousness was due to an accidental arrangement of matter, but that does not seem to me to be the case -and I don't believe all that preceded man supports that view.

I do believe the human consciousness was necessarily preceded by another consciousness, due to that which obviously preceded it.
However, I believe what is said by some about the universe and man, etc, not requiring a creator is actually applicable to the creator -and not applicable to the universe, man, etc.

It seems to me that the singularity known as the Big Bang could not have been the beginning of all -the very beginning -due to the amount of information which must have been contained in it -which expanded and became the universe, formed the elements which lend themselves to physical life, etc...

It also seems to me that the information contained therein is indicative of that which preceded it, and essentially packaged it.

The human consciousness, to me, seems to be representative of that which preceded it, also.


It seems to me that the "very beginning" would be very simple -as simple as can be -not a singularity of the complex nature of the Big Bang.

I do not believe the Big Bang could have existed or initiated without a consciousness preceding it.

As we are within an environment which is already in motion, it is difficult to truly isolate things and bring things to a state of rest, but inasmuch as we are able -given our limited power -we see that nothing happens unless we decide it does.
We also see that we could not stare at a bunch of non-moving stuff unless we were made of some kind of stuff.

Therefore, it seems to me that either consciousness preceded all that is -or that all that is developed along with that consciousness -by that consciousness.... Consciousness and matter essentially being one (or, perhaps akin to one and zero -to liken reality to virtual reality)

I do not claim to know the nature of "God" -and these ideas are based on my limited knowledge and perspective.

 

[Willamena]

Something I've been thinking about lately
Are we just a product of the universe becoming conscious of itself?

No. The universe isn't as much a fool as we are.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I do believe the human consciousness was necessarily preceded by another consciousness, due to that which obviously preceded it.

Anthropomorphism?

 

[Etritonakin]

Anthropomorphism?

HellifIknow

 

[mystic64]

Anthropomorphism?

I suspect the Universe can play a mean game of chess .

 

[Etritonakin]

Anthropomorphism?

...an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics

...the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.

Human characteristics/behavior..

That which preceded us attributed its characteristics and behavior to us.

(Humanity can conceive of subduing the universe -and we are not more than that which conceived us -we were conceived by that which conceived of subduing the universe.)

We make more of that which preceded us -though we are less than it.

We have the attributes and behavior of gods -but are lesser than "God".

We are. We are more.

God is I AM -and then more.

We are many. God is one. One is before many -though many are one.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Psa 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

That which preceded many would have been one greater than the many -but that which made up the one would be lesser than the one -the one is made up of the many, because the one made many of himself.

The many are many consciousnesses.

The one is the one consciousness -made up of the unconscious -which makes up the consciousnesses.

The many know that many others are -because many others are immediately apparent.

The one is far removed.

 

[Etritonakin]

As of 2010, there are 118 known elements (in this context, "known" means observed well enough, even from just a few decay products, to have been differentiated from other elements). Of these 118 elements, 98 occur naturally on Earth

Everything we know and consider in these forums are arrangements of those few things (and whatever else may be.)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

As of 2010, there are 118 known elements (in this context, "known" means observed well enough, even from just a few decay products, to have been differentiated from other elements). Of these 118 elements, 98 occur naturally on Earth
Everything we know and consider in these forums are arrangements of those few things (and whatever else may be.)

So do you think consciousness is an element?

 

[Etritonakin]

So do you think consciousness is an element?

hmmmm.... consciousness of something and something of which to be conscious being essential to one another -consciousness is made of something, nothing is made without consciousness...essentially inseparable.... becoming more conscious by making more of which to be conscious.....

By the following definition, yes (mostly).

Element

1. a part or aspect of something abstract, especially one that is essential or characteristic:

....except real -not abstract

Abstract

existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence:

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.