Is the universe conscious of itself...

[outhouse]

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.

I have no problem when stated just like that.

The universe is not factually conscious though, and that is the OP. The universe is not alive because people are.

The universe contains beings that are conscious.

 

[gnostic]

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.

No, if you are going to make claim of anything that defy reality then the burden of proof is yours.

For instance, if you claim that the tooth fairy is a real fairy that really exist, then it is up to you to provide evidences that the tooth fairy exist. It is not up for others to prove you wrong.

Why in the 7 bloody hells that other people have to prove you are wrong, when you are the one making the claim?

If you are going to make the claims, especially in regards to science of something that's natural or even artificial (like technology), then you either have to provide the evidences, or at the very least scientific sources that have already verified and tested.

 

[Straw Dog]

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

Do people possess brains or do brains possess people?

Does the universe have a 'self' to be all 'it' about?

 

[Theunis]

Do people possess brains or do brains possess people?

Does the universe have a 'self' to be all 'it' about?

People and their brains make up a unity. Neither possess the other. The backbone to Outhouse's argument suggests that there are brainless people !!

Plants have been found to be sentient, but do they have conventional brains?

 

[Etritonakin]

No, if you are going to make claim of anything that defy reality then the burden of proof is yours.

For instance, if you claim that the tooth fairy is a real fairy that really exist, then it is up to you to provide evidences that the tooth fairy exist. It is not up for others to prove you wrong.

Why in the 7 bloody hells that other people have to prove you are wrong, when you are the one making the claim?

If you are going to make the claims, especially in regards to science of something that's natural or even artificial (like technology), then you either have to provide the evidences, or at the very least scientific sources that have already verified and tested.

You asked me what I thought you should do. I told you.

I am not making any claim that defies reality.

To which do you refer?

 

[outhouse]

Do people possess brains or do brains possess people?

Does the universe have a 'self' to be all 'it' about?

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]

The backbone to Outhouse's argument suggests that there are brainless people !!

Only if you cannot understand the actual context required to define what we do and do not know.

In no possible way did I ever suggest people are brainless, this is only your desperate red herring.

 

[Theunis]

Only if you cannot understand the actual context required to define what we do and do not know.

In no possible way did I ever suggest people are brainless, this is only your desperate red herring.

In context the red herring is yours.
Nope you said there are people with brains leaving your statement wide open to interpretation.
You are limiting all things to your perception or reality based on your "written in stone" attitude.
Again - plants are sentient but they do not have "conventional" human brains. Do a web search "Sentient plants" and learn a bit more than your blinkered outlook which you so desperately cling to.

What is factual to you does not mean it is factual to others for you base your opinions on only that which you wish to see.

 

[Theunis]

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

This is a emphatic claim which places the onus on you to prove it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is a emphatic claim which places the onus on you to prove it.

Normally, the onus is on one who seeks to demonstrate the truth of claim, not its negation. Thus, the onus is on the one who seeks to show the universe is aware, not that it isn't.
However, it is a property of systems that possess some sense of self-awareness/consciousness (even those systems generally not regarded as being sufficiently aware as to be considered conscious) that the emergence of consciousness be unaware of the components of the system that produce it (the CNS, the brain, the PFC, or however one wishes to partition the nervous system into "responsible for consciousness" vs. "not responsible for consciousness").
Put simply, it is almost universally believed that human consciousness is not possible without the brain (even many dualists and believers in the soul hold that, as living humans, our "souls" or "minds" or whatever "use" a physical brain- the infamous "ghost in the machine). Thus without neural interactions we cannot be conscious (or, for those who believe in souls and the existence of "self" after death, consciousness must emerge from something other than the brain).
If the universe were conscious, than the universe would necessarily be ignorant of the components of the system whence this consciousness emerged. The "universe" wouldn't be conscious of its "brains'" parts/"neurons". However, the components of the universe consist of everything that exists. For the universe to be conscious, to have self-awareness, it can't be conscious of the components that allow it to be conscious any more than we can be conscious of our neurons. But nothing else exists for the universe to be conscious of.
It's like a brain being conscious in vacuum. How can it be conscious (and of what) when all that exists is that which would make it conscious if there were anything to be conscious of?

 

[Theunis]

Normally, the onus is on one who seeks to demonstrate the truth of claim, not its negation. Thus, the onus is on the one who seeks to show the universe is aware, not that it isn't.
However, it is a property of systems that possess some sense of self-awareness/consciousness (even those systems generally not regarded as being sufficiently aware as to be considered conscious) that the emergence of consciousness be unaware of the components of the system that produce it (the CNS, the brain, the PFC, or however one wishes to partition the nervous system into "responsible for consciousness" vs. "not responsible for consciousness").
Put simply, it is almost universally believed that human consciousness is not possible without the brain (even many dualists and believers in the soul hold that, as living humans, our "souls" or "minds" or whatever "use" a physical brain- the infamous "ghost in the machine). Thus without neural interactions we cannot be conscious (or, for those who believe in souls and the existence of "self" after death, consciousness must emerge from something other than the brain).
If the universe were conscious, than the universe would necessarily be ignorant of the components of the system whence this consciousness emerged. The "universe" wouldn't be conscious of its "brains'" parts/"neurons". However, the components of the universe consist of everything that exists. For the universe to be conscious, to have self-awareness, it can't be conscious of the components that allow it to be conscious any more than we can be conscious of our neurons. But nothing else exists for the universe to be conscious of.
It's like a brain being conscious in vacuum. How can it be conscious (and of what) when all that exists is that which would make it conscious if there were anything to be conscious of?

Emphatic claims shift the onus to the claimant.
Your post, to me, merely indicates that we are basing our views on our own perceptions. But hey we are outdone by dogs, bats, birds etc so I guess with our limited senses we because we change our environment - in many cases for the worse - we developed a false superiority complex and relate everything to the way we see things as if we are the ultimate.

Have a look at the first three minutes and see what Einstein and Max Planck say.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Emphatic claims shift the onus to the claimant.

That's an emphatic claim. Prove it.

we are basing our views on our own perceptions.

Our views are our perceptions.

But hey we are outdone by dogs, bats, birds etc

We aren't.

Have a look at the first three minutes and see what Einstein and Max Planck say.

Max Planck chided Einstein for his wrong-headed approach, and Einstein steadfastly resisted the brainchild of both he and Planck (quantum mechanics), as both were relics of classical physics. Einstein in particular became known for resisting progress out of misplaced ideology. He also, FYI, resisted the standard formulation of special relativity (Minkowski's), fudged his equations for general relativity to enable a static universe, and his most cited work is referenced because it is a fantastic argument...that he and co-authors were wrong.
I'm not impressed by name dropping physicists who resisted modern physics to the end, particularly when they were instrumental in founding it (and regretted doing so).

 

[Theunis]

That's an emphatic claim. Prove it.

Our views are our perceptions.

We aren't.

Max Planck chided Einstein for his wrong-headed approach, and Einstein steadfastly resisted the brainchild of both he and Planck (quantum mechanics), as both were relics of classical physics. Einstein in particular became known for resisting progress out of misplaced ideology. He also, FYI, resisted the standard formulation of special relativity (Minkowski's), fudged his equations for general relativity to enable a static universe, and his most cited work is referenced because it is a fantastic argument...that he and co-authors were wrong.
I'm not impressed by name dropping physicists who resisted modern physics to the end, particularly when they were instrumental in founding it (and regretted doing so).[/QUOTE
Trying the old trick by not answering and reflecting what was said back to where it came from.

Our views/perceptions is being misrepresented by you, so let me clarify and say our opinions are based on how we perceive things which are obscured by Maya,. emotions and self deception of how grand and wise we think we are. (Unjustified Superiority complex)

Sure we are. Can you fly; smell better than a dog; hear what a bat can hear.

You are totally deviating from what Einstein and Max Planck said as quoted in the video which makes your comment out of context and to me meaningless..

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can you fly; smell better than a dog; hear what a bat can hear.

I can hear better than a bat, because my auditory systems allow for far, far, far greater information processing from sound waves than any other non-human on the planet. I can fly, because humans created an airplane. And I can smell better than dogs, because while they can differentiate far more olfactory input than I, they can't render these differentiations in anything remotely resembling the meaningful categorizations that humans can.

You are totally deviating from what Einstein and Max Planck said as quoted in the video

That's because I've read their works in German and English and the history and philosophy of physics and the comments by their contemporaries and intellectual descendants. I don't need a little youtube video.

 

[Theunis]

I can hear better than a bat, because my auditory systems allow for far, far, far greater information processing from sound waves than any other non-human on the planet. I can fly, because humans created an airplane. And I can smell better than dogs, because while they can differentiate far more olfactory input than I, they can't render these differentiations in anything remotely resembling the meaningful categorizations that humans can.

That's because I've read their works in German and English and the history and philosophy of physics and the comments by their contemporaries and intellectual descendants. I don't need a little youtube video.

bats - they can hear ultra-sonics,
Dogs - How do you know that they cannot categorize that which they smell?
Bats and birds do not require artificial means to fly.
You mean you do not wish to be faced by the ubacceptable as quoted in that video.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

bats - they can hear ultra-sonics

Which makes them far less capable than some basic machinery we can build. Detecting a signal is nothing compared to comprehending it.

Dogs - How do you know that they cannot categorize that which they smell?

Because they demonstrate an incapacity to associate differentiation of olfactory stimuli, both in terms of memory and conceptual processing. And of course behavioral studies have simply served to reinforce neuroimaging and even neurological (or gross neuroanatomical) findings.

Bats and birds do not require artificial means to fly.

True. But they lack the opposable thumbs, bats lack our eyesight, birds lack our hearing, both lack our somatosensory perception, and whatever we lack intrinsically we can supplement via technology, while no other species can. They also lack our capacity for visual processing, conceptual processing, general nervous system capability, flexibility, strength, fine motor coordination, lifespan, social abilities, and on and on and on. This pathetic little attempt to paint humans as somehow inferior to flying rats based upon extremely limited selection of extremely limited choices of abilities is just that: pathetic. You can isolate abilities that rats, bats, spiders, hawks, chimps, and so forth have that humans don't, but you must do so by isolating particular aspects of these abilities (e.g., you must limit the actual capacity such abilities yield by ignoring larger contexts) or by ignoring how humans vastly outstrip these would-be superior skills either through innate extensions of comparable sensorimotor range our technological capacities.

You mean you do not wish to be faced by the ubacceptable as quoted in that video.

No, I mean a few seconds into that video I found both historical and scientific inaccuracies. The solvey conference was not as described either historically or in terms of the issues discussed, which were in the clip misrepresented (as were both the views of Einstein and Planck). I already gave some examples of these misrepresentations.

 

[outhouse]

This is a emphatic claim which places the onus on you to prove it.

The universe is factually not an animal that possesses a brain to support conscious thought.

 

[Theunis]

The universe is factually not an animal that possesses a brain to support conscious thought.

Yeah based on a minuscule human point of view.
Plants are sentient but do not have a conventional human type brain. (Do an Internet search "Sentient plants")

A bit of out of the box thinking not based on how humans are is required; but then again if it is not materialistic, perceived as solid based, why then it just can't in they eyes of a materialist exist. Yoga says this world is an illusion and once the veils of Maya fall away we will see the truth.

 

[outhouse]

Plants are sentient but do not have a conventional human type brain. (Do an Internet search "Sentient plants")

It says its pseudo scientific garbage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(paranormal)

Plant perception or biocommunication is the paranormal idea that plants are sentient,

 

[outhouse]

veils of Maya fall away we will see the truth.

Wow that is way out there. What ever that pseudo history is or means .