Evidence for a Conscious Universe?

[Jim]

It's not that I don't agree with you' date=' Jim (my sig shows that I do), I just don't want to blur the distinction between consciousness as a spreading phenomenon [i']within[/i] the universe, and the universe itself being conscious. I think there would still be a distinction to be made even if consciousness eventually incorporates all matter and energy into itself as a single entity.

 

So... how do we reverse entropy, anyway?

 

I do not understand the distinction. We are the universe itself. Through us, and possibility other intelligent species, the universe is conscious. For the universe "itself" to be conscious, would there have to be a certain percentage of the matter of the universe arranged into conscious patterns? Alternatively, does the universe "itself" have to be conscious and significantly more intelligent than humans so that it is possible for the "universe" to provide enlightenment to humans? I'm not sure why the standard of human intelligence would be relevant. I certainly acknowledge the possibility that other intelligences might seem godlike to us but I'm not sure why that is any more evidence that the "universe itself" has become conscious than recent developments on our planet.

[mooeypoo]

We are the universe itself.

 

No, we are PART of the universe.

 

The universe, if you calculate the observations, is built to produce black holes MORE than it is to produce life. Life in this universe, it is now believed, are an inevitable side effect.

 

That would make us PART of a universe, and not its whole..

 

And even if this observation is NOT true -- just seeing the vast amounts of stars out there that don't contain conscious life means we are A Consciousness Within The Universe, and not The Making of The Universe's Consciousness..

 

 

~moo

[Sisyphus]

By "the universe" I take to mean not just all the matter and energy within the universe but also the framework of spacetime and physical laws within which the former exist. By "a conscious universe" I mean the whole as a single entity. Hence, to say the universe is conscious because we, consciousness, are part of it, is no more accurate than saying the universe is a star, because there are stars within it.

[mooeypoo]

Well said, sisyphus, and also, calling the entire universe as a whole "conscious" is exactly like saying it is - in its whole - a conscious entity. That has many implications, and I am not sure it is any different than calling it - or reffering to it as - 'god'.

 

~moo

[Jim]

That would make us PART of a universe, and not its whole..

 

Yes, obviously. Please recall that I was responding to Sisyphus' distinction between consciousness of the "universe itself" vrs portions of the "universe itself" becoming conscious. I'm not sure if this is a meaningful distinction if both concepts are bounded within this universe.

 

My question was what criteria would we judge the "universe itself" to be conscious? Does 100% of the matter and energy have to be part of a conscious pattern? Does 100% of the matter and energy have to be integral to a conscious pattern? 50% 1/3rd? Or, as you suggest, a lot of mechanical processes which have as their "inevitable" result, the generation of life? You view this to be a "side effect" but this is mere argumentation by label.

 

Another concept that was floating out there in other posts was that the ability of this more encompassing intelligence to enlighten us would be relevant. Again, my point was I don't see why this would be a significant distinction between that life and our own. It would most likely flow merely from the stage of evolution of the various forms of life.

 

The universe, if you calculate the observations, is built to produce black holes MORE than it is to produce life. Life in this universe, it is now believed, are an inevitable side effect.

 

When you say the universe is "built to produce black holes" you are speaking to the intent of the universe when I was not. I do not purport to declare the universe's purpose and have not claimed that it was built to produce life instead of black holes. I was raising a question about the concept being discussed.

 

And even if this observation is NOT true -- just seeing the vast amounts of stars out there that don't contain conscious life means we are A Consciousness Within The Universe, and not The Making of The Universe's Consciousness..

 

We are part of where the universe has become conscious. Why does this trouble you?

[mooeypoo]

Yes' date=' obviously. Please recall that I was responding to Sisyphus' distinction between consciousness of the "universe itself" vrs portions of the "universe itself" becoming conscious. I'm not sure if this is a meaningful distinction if both concepts are bounded within this universe.

[/quote']

 

I know. I was refering to that too. I was trying to show the distinction.. erm, I obviously failed will have to think of better ways to put it. Give me time

 

My question was what criteria would we judge the "universe itself" to be conscious? Does 100% of the matter and energy have to be part of a conscious pattern? Does 100% of the matter and energy have to be integral to a conscious pattern? 50% 1/3rd? My point is that A majority of all matter and energy integrated into a conscious entity? All of the matter & energy? Or' date=' as you suggest, a lot of mechanical processes which have as their "inevitable" result, the generation of life?

[/quote']

 

Consciousness doesn't measure by percentages. The huma consciousness probably comes from the brain - does that mean you're only 15% conscious? No. You're either conscious, or you're not.

 

If you want to say there are parts of the universe that contain consciousness, go ahead. But saying that the universe itself is conscious is just bogus, and unbased.. also, since saying that implies many OTHER things, I am not quite sure I would go for that notion.

 

When you say the universe is "built to produce black holes" you are speaking to the intent of the universe when I was not. I do not purport to declare the universe's purpose and have not claimed that it was built to produce life instead of black holes. I was raising a question about the concept being discussed.

 

This is my point: I don't think the universe HAS intent. Things happen, mostly random events that affect and exist within already existing laws. It's not that I see the universe's purpose as different than you, it's that as far as I understood you, you see it having a purpose, and I don't.

 

Having a purpose, and having a consciousness, is being a diety. Whether you ask someone to worship that diety or no, you are reffering to the unvierse as an omniscient, intentful entity: Diety.

 

I just simply disagree with you. Things seem to be much more random than they are intended.

 

We are part of where the universe has become conscious. Why does this trouble you?

 

This doesn't trouble me, I just disagree with it; as I explained earlier in this post, the fact WE are conscious doesn't mean the universe -- parts of it or its entirety -- is conscious.

 

Let me ask you something, since I think I don't quite understand where you're going with this. What exactly do you mean when you say our universe is conscious (or parts of it)? Does it HAVE an intention? Things that happen, created in this universe, omvements, laws that occur -- they have a purpose? Is that what you mean? Or do you mean just in terms of "admitting" we have a consciousness within our universe... ?

 

Please explain, I think I misunderstood you.

 

~moo

[Jim]

I know. I was refering to that too. I was trying to show the distinction.. erm, I obviously failed will have to think of better ways to put it. Give me time

 

That's okay. We are just two tiny bits of the universe trying to come to an understanding.

 

 

 

Consciousness doesn't measure by percentages. The huma consciousness probably comes from the brain - does that mean you're only 15% conscious? No. You're either conscious, or you're not.

 

I completely agree. This is why I didn't see the distinction between parts of the universe being conscious (e.g. us) and the entire universe being conscious.

 

I also didn't see as meaningful the point that the universe is built to produce black holes. The vast majority of the functions of my body have nothing to do with higher level brain functions.

 

If you want to say there are parts of the universe that contain consciousness, go ahead. But saying that the universe itself is conscious is just bogus, and unbased.. also, since saying that implies many OTHER things, I am not quite sure I would go for that notion.

 

I do not care what is implied. 9/10th of the fun in being agnostic is that you get to go where a mood takes you on a given day. My only intention was to answer the question posed by the Title of this thread. I don't see evidence that the entire universe is conscious but I do see evidence that portions of it are. I'm not sure why this is a meaningful distinction.

 

This is my point: I don't think the universe HAS intent. Things happen, mostly random events that affect and exist within already existing laws. It's not that I see the universe's purpose as different than you, it's that as far as I understood you, you see it having a purpose, and I don't.

 

I don't know if it has a purpose. If it does, I suspect it would be to produce conscious beings with free will.

 

Having a purpose, and having a consciousness, is being a diety. Whether you ask someone to worship that diety or no, you are reffering to the unvierse as an omniscient, intentful entity: Diety.

 

Actually, I was going in the opposite direction. The thread's OP seems to be suggesting their might be such a Deity. I do see evidence that the universe is self-aware but that does not prove the existence of a Deity.

 

I'm agnostic on the whole purpose thing. I choose to believe that our lives matter but I'm willing to be educated on the point.

 

I just simply disagree with you. Things seem to be much more random than they are intended.

 

I love the power of being able to happily say, "I just don't know." If I were a super powerful & intelligent being, I can see wanting to set off a firecracker which produces conscious beings with free will. My sense that this is plausible and not to be dismissed out of hand doesn't constitute evidence.

 

This doesn't trouble me, I just disagree with it; as I explained earlier in this post, the fact WE are conscious doesn't mean the universe -- parts of it or its entirety -- is conscious.

 

I don't see how you get around the reality that part of the universe are conscious. True, it's early in the morning and the air conditioning in my house is on the fritz (great way to come home from a vacation!) so my consciousness is tenuous. Still, my molecules, strings, whatever are made from cosmic processes and most of the time I am conscious.

 

Let me ask you something, since I think I don't quite understand where you're going with this. What exactly do you mean when you say our universe is conscious (or parts of it)? Does it HAVE an intention? Things that happen, created in this universe, omvements, laws that occur -- they have a purpose? Is that what you mean? Or do you mean just in terms of "admitting" we have a consciousness within our universe... ?

 

Please explain, I think I misunderstood you.

 

I was just answering the title of the thread not going anywhere in particular. I do have a sense of wonder about our place in the universe which I've expressed before. It took 14 billion years for us to get to this point where we are either going to evolve or snuff ourselves out. Pretty exciting stuff!

 

Here's an article about our predecessors stringing together beads 100,000 years ago and even that length of time is but a tick of the cosmic clock. I've no idea whether this entire march to doomsday or evolution was envisioned by some being and set into motion. My point is only that whether there is or is not such a being, we are pretty cool too.

[artnat]

I completely lost you.

 

How is saying "higher power /nature - is omniscience and has intention" not a definition of a diety?

 

The eagerness to convert the term "conscious universe" to "God" or "entity" suggests an effort to set up a theistic straw horse by insinuating all the religious attributes associated with a deity, commonly assumed to have a personality and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions much like humans. Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other "acts of God," and miracles are attributed to it, and it may be thought to be the authority or controller of every aspect of human life from birth to death and the afterlife. A God, entity or diety can be asserted to be the director of time and fate itself, to be the giver of human law and morality, and to be the ultimate judge of human worth and behavior.

 

I specifically did NOT ascribe any "intention" to the conscious universe other than to be experienced. As Christopher Bache has written in regards to a transcendent insight- "This exploration seemed to answer a cosmic need not only to know but to be known." (viz: "experienced")

 

Since my presentation is evolving I appreciate any posts (even the gratuitous ridicule) which identify points which need better clarification. One such point is my applying the term "omniscient" in describing the conscious universe by which I meant "all present". I see in wiki that this could also imply "omnipotence" meaning "all powerful" which is not an attribute I want to ascribe to the consciousness I experienced- so hope this distinction is clear.

[Jim]

The eagerness to convert the term "conscious universe" to "God" or "entity" suggests an effort to set up a theistic straw horse by insinuating all the religious attributes associated with a deity' date=' commonly assumed to have a personality and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions much like humans. Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other "acts of God," and miracles are attributed to it, and it may be thought to be the authority or controller of every aspect of human life from birth to death and the afterlife. A God, entity or diety can be asserted to be the director of time and fate itself, to be the giver of human law and morality, and to be the ultimate judge of human worth and behavior.

 

I specifically did NOT ascribe any "intention" to the conscious universe other than to be experienced. As Christopher Bache has written in regards to a transcendent insight- "This exploration seemed to answer a cosmic need not only to know but to be known." (viz: "experienced")

 

Since my presentation is evolving I appreciate any posts (even the gratuitous ridicule) which identify points which need better clarification. One such point is my applying the term "omniscient" in describing the conscious universe by which I meant "all present". I see in wiki that this could also imply "omnipotence" meaning "all powerful" which is not an attribute I want to ascribe to the consciousness I experienced- so hope this distinction is clear.[/quote']

 

I would never ridicule a person's subjective religious experience so long as they leave it in that realm. However, if I saw your material in a book at Barnes & Noble, I would flip to the jacket to see who you were and why, in particular, I should invest my time and thought into your theories. Since I am easily lead astray as a layman, I usually need to hear the author's scientific credentials as a starting place. I need to know that they are well grounded in the basics before taking interest in their inferences as to the mind of God.

 

This is probably akin to the five blind men feeling the elephant. These fields you reference are so deep, specialized and, frankly, damned difficult, that no one person really is yet in a position to describe the nature of the entire beast.

 

Jim

 

PS: I liked your link page.

[Royston]

For what it's worth, just to put a different spin on the universe being 'conscious' - and to reaffirm why I think consciousness is intrinsic with the evolution of the universe, or it's an 'emergent' property of space-time, is that I see the universe as a logical progression (I'm sure I've said this countless times on here...but nevermind.)

 

In that consciousness is an inevitability, the universe is almost pointless unless there is something to observe it, and make sense of it, IMO of course. So I wouldn't regard the entire universe as being conscious...that's non-sensical (the earth doesn't revolve around the earth with intent.) However I do believe the universe evolves, and consciousness is the pinnacle of this evolution...I guess this is a bit like the anthropic principle (this is not to be confused with Darwin's theory.)

 

So the universe is conscious as much as it's system brings about consciousness...how it evolves after this point, is anybodies guess.

[Jim]

For what it's worth' date=' just to put a different spin on the universe being 'conscious' - and to reaffirm why I think consciousness is intrinsic with the evolution of the universe, or it's an 'emergent' property of space-time, is that I see the universe as a logical progression (I'm sure I've said this countless times on here...but nevermind.)

 

In that consciousness is an inevitability, the universe is almost pointless unless there is something to observe it, and make sense of it, IMO of course. So I wouldn't regard the entire universe as being conscious...that's non-sensical (the earth doesn't revolve around the earth with intent.) However I do believe the universe evolves, and consciousness is the pinnacle of this evolution...I guess this is a bit like the anthropic principle (this is not to be confused with Darwin's theory.)

 

So the universe is conscious as much as it's system brings about consciousness...how it evolves after this point, is anybodies guess.[/quote']

 

Snail, I completely agree. In fact, I'm a little relieved that someone agrees with my POV.

 

The only point on which I am uncertain is whether consciousness is intrinsic to the unvierse. I think we'd need more data before making that judgment.

[artnat]

I would never ridicule a person's subjective religious experience so long as they leave it in that realm. However' date=' if I saw your material in a book at Barnes & Noble, I would flip to the jacket to see who you were and why, in particular, I should invest my time and thought into your theories. Since I am easily lead astray as a layman, I usually need to hear the author's scientific credentials as a starting place. I need to know that they are well grounded in the basics before taking interest in their inferences as to the mind of God.

 

This is probably akin to the five blind men feeling the elephant. These fields you reference are so deep, specialized and, frankly, damned difficult, that no one person really is yet in a position to describe the nature of the entire beast.

 

Jim

 

PS: I liked your link page.[/quote']

 

I certainly share your skepticism over any claims to know a Theory of Everything or anything for that matter. Thanks to the internet, ordinary guys like you and me can access the brightest and latest theories, examine the controversies and contradictions and discover if there are solid rationales for our thinking. Consciousness being the ultimate challenge, it involves academic arguments that are way over my head but they eventually get translated in popular terms I can understand and bring into my equation. That's why I feature links to the resources I use for my presentation...so readers don't have to take my unqualified opinion but can read the evidence and draw their own conclusions.

 

PS: Just added a compendium of links to Consciousness/Electromagnetism at>

http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/emcu_appendex.html

 

One thing that came to me today was that the concept of space as being empty seemed totally illogical given that electromagnetic radiation featuring photons (either as mass less particles and/or waves) constitute an active property in solution in every milliliter of the universe separating matter. This would be true even if there were only a single star and proved by the fact that its light would be visible from any point in space within our range of sensitivity. My tenative thinking is that photons may be the elemental components of a cosmic consciousness matrix as neuroreceptors are to our brain. Now I'll have to see if there's any qualified thinking on the internet to

support that idea.

[Royston]

Snail' date=' I completely agree. In fact, I'm a little relieved that someone agrees with my POV.

 

The only point on which I am uncertain is whether consciousness is intrinsic to the unvierse. I think we'd need more data before making that judgment.[/quote']

 

I'll come back to this Jim, I'm a little busy at the moment...but I'll leave you with this thought, if consciousness is an 'inevitability', then I believe there is an underlying property from the start of the universe to the point where it harbours self aware life. I'm not saying there's a 'will' or intent, but a pattern of some sort that brings about conscious thought. Could be a load of clap trap, and as for gaining data, maybe when I'm more qualified I could approach a quantitive expression of this...though it's not actually in my interest to prove something I believe, I see that as wholly unscientific.

 

I'd be happy just getting a degree in physics...trying to tackle the above, would be bordering on the ridiculous.

[artnat]

My tenative thinking is that photons may be the elemental components of a cosmic consciousness matrix as neuroreceptors are to our brain. Now I'll have to see if there's any qualified thinking on the internet to

support that idea.

 

The risks of spontaneosly blurting out ideas as in this example. What I meant to say is- My tenative thinking is that photons may be the elemental components of a cosmic consciousness matrix anologous to signals that are transmitted among brain neuroreceptors.

 

Also I don't see that anyone so far in this discussion is claiming that they know or are on the path of having any certainty about the existence of a consciousness universe. There are however comments that reveal a certainty that no such property is possible.

[Jim]

I'll come back to this Jim' date=' I'm a little busy at the moment...but I'll leave you with this thought, if consciousness is an 'inevitability', then I [i']believe[/i] there is an underlying property from the start of the universe to the point where it harbours self aware life. I'm not saying there's a 'will' or intent, but a pattern of some sort that brings about conscious thought. Could be a load of clap trap, and as for gaining data, maybe when I'm more qualified I could approach a quantitive expression of this...though it's not actually in my interest to prove something I believe, I see that as wholly unscientific.

 

I'd be happy just getting a degree in physics...trying to tackle the above, would be bordering on the ridiculous.

 

You are saying some things that I've been unsuccessfully struggling to articulate. I'll look forward to your post.

 

I was really referring to the possibility of SETI one day providing some data.

 

Also I don't see that anyone so far in this discussion is claiming that they know or are on the path of having any certainty about the existence of a consciousness universe. There are however comments that reveal a certainty that no such property is possible.

 

I know of no evidence to support the proposition but am not certain that no such property is possible. I am unclear as to what property we are discussing. What does it mean for the universe to be conscious?

[artnat]

I know of no evidence to support the proposition but am not certain that no such property is possible. I am unclear as to what property we are discussing. What does it mean for the universe to be conscious?

 

What do you mean by a Conscious Universe?

 

Good question. Since the new science of consciousness already covers a spectrum of speculation ranging from the human mind to inanimate particles creating a bewildering array of theories and divisions and sub-divisions, it's no surprise that trying to define what is meant by a "conscious universe" is an ultimate challenge. Any such effort must be simply speculation about possibilities.

 

My attempt for an opinion for the "how" of a conscious universe is described in this thread's opening post and involves the properties in electromagnetic radiation entanglement with our neurophoton fields

 

Regarding its "what", here are my speculations for attributes listed in order of descending probability.

 

A conscious universe could be:

 

inwardly and outwardly aware

realized through transcendent experience

the ground of all being

creative, pervasive and supportive of the manifest universe

entangled with our human consciousness

 

Attributes commonly applied to a divinity:

 

omnicient (all knowing- perhaps future knowledge)

omnipotent (all powerfull)

sentient (compassionate)

purposeful, imposing "downward causation" and enabling "upward causation" as free will

 

(Due to the vagueness inherent in words, all the above "attributes" have the potential to superimpose on one another.)

 

 

In regards to the "why", I have no opinion.

[Sisyphus]

For what it's worth' date=' just to put a different spin on the universe being 'conscious' - and to reaffirm why I think consciousness is intrinsic with the evolution of the universe, or it's an 'emergent' property of space-time, is that I see the universe as a logical progression (I'm sure I've said this countless times on here...but nevermind.)

 

In that consciousness is an inevitability, the universe is almost pointless unless there is something to observe it, and make sense of it, IMO of course. So I wouldn't regard the entire universe as being conscious...that's non-sensical (the earth doesn't revolve around the earth with intent.) However I do believe the universe evolves, and consciousness is the pinnacle of this evolution...I guess this is a bit like the anthropic principle (this is not to be confused with Darwin's theory.)

 

So the universe is conscious as much as it's system brings about consciousness...how it evolves after this point, is anybodies guess.[/quote']

 

It is a bit anthropic, yes. What makes consciousness the pinnacle and not just another phenomenon? How is the inevitability of consciousness different from the inevitability of anything else in a deterministic universe? The universe brings about a lot of things (<--- biggest understatement of the thread), are the properties of all of them then properties of the whole?

[Jim]

Regarding its "what"' date=' here are my speculations for attributes listed in order of descending probability.

 

A conscious universe could be:

 

inwardly and outwardly aware

realized through transcendent experience

the ground of all being

creative, pervasive and supportive of the manifest universe

entangled with our human consciousness

 

[/quote']

 

Inwardly and outwardly aware: portions of the universe are inwardly and outwardly aware at least from their own frame of reference. I have no evidence that the entire universe is aware of some existence outside of the universe. For that matter, I have no way of knowing there is existence outside of the universe.

 

Realized through transcendent experience: I do not understand this concept. Realizable by humans? What does it mean to say transcendent? Does this mean a process which is not understandable through science? Could reading about science, even by a layman, be a transcendent experience?

 

The ground of all being: Well, the universe is the ground for all being within its boundaries. I'm not sure if you mean that it the ground for all being of existence in the outward reality you imagine.

 

Creative, pervasive and supportive of the manifest universe: the universe which originated from the big bang does seem to meet these criteria almost by definition.

 

Entangled with our human consciousness: I'm not sure what you mean by entangled. Certainly our consciousness came to be as a result of the processes caused by the universe and, in that sense, is entangled.

[Jim]

It is a bit anthropic, yes.

 

I'm gathering that to present an "anthropic" argument is something of a faux pas in some circles.

 

What makes consciousness the pinnacle and not just another phenomenon?

 

The word "pinnacle" invokes images of geography and shape. It's hard to fit the trait of consciousness as having relevance to the shape of the universe. It is true that consciousness is not physically on "top" of anything and, even if it was, we'd not know why being on top has importance. This is all conjecture anyway because we do not know what is outside of the universe. We could say that all consciousness started at the center with the big bang. Of course, so did everything else. Whether a particular form of consciousness was ever the center of the universe was always a red herring.

 

A trait might be important for some purpose or plan. This begs the questions of whose purpose and plan?

 

If you believe in God, the answer is easy. Consciousness is important to God's purpose.

 

If you are an atheist, the question is nonsensical. There is no whom to which human consciousness is important. (I'm still trying to figure out why an atheist shouldn't be a nihilist.)

 

If you are agnostic, like me, you are really confused. However, at least there is enough uncertainty to accept as an axiom that consciousness is important.

[Sisyphus]

I'm gathering that to present an "anthropic" argument is something of a faux pas in some circles.

 

Just typical of your average small-minded, self-centered human is all.

 

If you are an atheist, the question is nonsensical. There is no whom to which human consciousness is important. (I'm still trying to figure out why an atheist shouldn't be a nihilist.)

 

Not true! Consciousness is important to us, who are conscious. How could you possibly say anything less (or more)?

[Jim]

Just typical of your average small-minded' date=' self-centered human is all.

 

 

 

Not true! Consciousness is important to us, who are conscious. How could you possibly say anything less (or more)?[/quote']

 

But isn't that being.... er... a tad anthropic?

[Sisyphus]

No. We have no importance beyond what we give ourselves, to whom we are the most important things in the universe. There are no illusions of any "inherent" importance, and certainly none that anyone or anything besides ourselves cares at all or has any purpose for us.

[Royston]

Just typical of your average small-minded, self-centered human is all.

 

Sisyphus, pinnacle and importance are distinct, the start of the universe is equally as important as the state it is in now otherwise we wouldn't be here. I think you're misinterpreting what my 'belief' is (though not set in stone as a religious belief per se) I did not mention purpose, or intent, in fact I made it clear that I don't think there is intent with regards to the universe.

 

If there was intent, then the universe started through will, which contradicts the manifestation of consicousness and self awareness. I completely understand your take on the universe, that self awareness is just one poperty of many (agreed biggest understatement in this thread) but unless you can come up with compelling evidence that self awareness predated apes / humans then you can't really argue the case. Aliens of course, is another argument...but as far as I'm aware, for the universe to evolve to a point where it harbours life that can make sense of it, seems to me IMO a logical progress.

 

Can you do me a favour, and PM me before making comments like this, I completely respect your outlook, please show some common courtesy with regard to other viewpoints.

 

EDIT: Let me put it this way...if I had a three dimensional lattice, and fed some numbers into it to develop a pattern, the end result would bear no resembalance to the initial numbers, however the pattern could not emerge unless there were specific conditions to create the pattern.

[In My Memory]

I've moved this thread from Religion and Philosophy to Speculations, where I feel its more appropriate

[artnat]

1. Inwardly and outwardly aware: portions of the universe are inwardly and outwardly aware at least from their own frame of reference. I have no evidence that the entire universe is aware of some existence outside of the universe. For that matter' date=' I have no way of knowing there is existence outside of the universe.

 

2. Realized through transcendent experience: I do not understand this concept. Realizable by humans? What does it mean to say transcendent? Does this mean a process which is not understandable through science? Could reading about science, even by a layman, be a transcendent experience?

 

3. The ground of all being: Well, the universe is the ground for all being within its boundaries. I'm not sure if you mean that it the ground for all being of existence in the outward reality you imagine.

 

4. Creative, pervasive and supportive of the manifest universe: the universe which originated from the big bang does seem to meet these criteria almost by definition.

 

5. Entangled with our human consciousness: I'm not sure what you mean by entangled. Certainly our consciousness came to be as a result of the processes caused by the universe and, in that sense, is entangled.[/quote']

 

 

Addressing comments in quotes in order:

 

1. Inward and outward indicates direction not a destination so shouldn't be taken to mean anything exists outside. I take the words as simply metaphors for indicating a non-homogenous whole. One can imagine an infinity of aspects that can be compared. Just one possibility: Inward in respect to structures of space/time, matter, electromagnetism, strong and weak

forces, etc....Outward in respect to life, evolution, sentient consciousness (or visa versa).

 

2. With no coherent non-theological or metaphysical epistemology for addressing the subtlety of non-physical realities the best analogy is the experience of Samadhi where a person's 'innermost' consciousness becomes one with the absolute and ultimate reality of the universe. How one interprets the experience defines whether it is religious, mystical, psychopathic, joining of individual bio with universal consciousness, or inexplicable.

 

3. See my comment No. 1 to clarify "outward".

 

4. OK

 

5. Go to http://www.courtneybrown.com/reviews/BookReviews/RadinEntangledMinds.html for a brief intro as to how quantum entaglement may influence our consciousness. My speculation is that radiant sources of photons (our Sun and stars) constitute a universal consciousness which are entangled with our neurophoton fields to complete a conscious matrix.