Evidence for a Conscious Universe?

[Jim]

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.

 

Interesting. As some Christians may believe in God because it is comforting, socially advantageous or to hedge their bets against hell, you choose to believe human beings are important out of self-interest?

[artnat]

The URL to http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/mysticalexp.html - the original reference at the start of this thread has been changed to

http://maya-gaia.angelfire.com/mysticalexp.html

[bombus]

Have you heard about the Big Wow Theory?

 

The Big Wow theory is the colloquial name for a paper by Italian astrophysicist Paola Zizzi entitled “Emergent Consciousness; From the Early Universe to Our Mind”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paola_Zizzi

 

You also might be interested in the following link. It's Dr. Stuart Hameroff being 'the skunk at an atheists conference'. He's not treated with much respect! He presents a suggestions about universal consciousness being a secular, non-religious, science-based approach to God.

 

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival

 

Go to session 4.

 

The rest of the conference is very good by the way!

Edited June 13, 2009 by bombus

[KtownChemist]

When you think about self-consciousness you think about your body. At any moment of time the parts of your body you have conscious control over. But since you can't consciously make your intestines absorb food, are your intestines part of your consciousness?

 

We all agree that your hand can be considered part of your consciousness because you can move it at will, but if you cut it off then what?

 

A ball on the ground is not considered part of your consciousness, but when you pick it up you have control over it so does it become part of your consciousness?

 

Then if you throw the ball in a certain direction at a certain speed, is the ball under your consciousness the entire time its traveling from your hand to the spot you chose to throw it.

 

Or is consciousness the total of all the information coming in to your person, the processing of the information inside your person and information leaving your person for any moment in time.

To think about this make it a little bit simpler; Person A is stripped of all her senses except for touch. So she cant see, smell, hear, or taste. She person can only experience the world by what she touches and feels (vibrations). So she can only process(or think about) information she receives from these vibrations.

 

Now Person B has the senses of touch and hearing, So he can feel a vibration and instantaneously hear the sound associated with that vibration.

 

If both Person A and B were sitting next to each other next to a speaker listening to music; Person B would feel the vibration and hear the music associated with those vibrations, while Person A is only able to feel the vibrations.

 

Does this mean Person A is not conscious of the sound?

On the contrary, She is completely conscious of the sound she simply does not associate the vibration of the sound wave with a perceived hearing in her head.

 

She could consciously control the perceived music experienced by Person B by changing the vibration of the sound wave without ever even being conscious of the perceived sound. Therefore anything we see or dont see, experience or dont experience, think about or dont think about , do or dont do, is consciousness, whether we realize it or not.

[bombus]

Brains may merely utilize what we call consciousness in the same way that eyes utilize light, ears sound etc...

 

Of course this cannot be proven...

[Sisyphus]

Brains may merely utilize what we call consciousness in the same way that eyes utilize light, ears sound etc...

 

Of course this cannot be proven...

 

Yes, and kidneys may merely utilize what we call urine producing ability in the same way. Just nets to capture the urine-producing essence, echoing through the cosmos.*

 

*evidence pending**

 

**but you can't disprove it!

[bombus]

Yes, and kidneys may merely utilize what we call urine producing ability in the same way. Just nets to capture the urine-producing essence, echoing through the cosmos.*

 

*evidence pending**

 

**but you can't disprove it!

 

Well, one can't really argue with that...

[Kyrisch]

Exactly. So why posit it at all?

[bombus]

Exactly. So why posit it at all?

 

Well, probably because we are in Pseudoscience and Speculations, and it relates to Panpsychism which is more or less the subject of this thread.

[iNow]

It doesn't matter that you're posting in P&S. The point is that you've put forward an idea which is COMPLETELY non-helpful in an argument. It brings NOTHING to the discussion, which you've implicitly conceded. So, it's a waste of space and readers time.

 

Nobody is telling you that you cannot discuss this, or put forth ideas. The issue is that you're positing things which can be neither proven nor disproven, so it's NOT science... not even pseudoscience.

[bombus]

It doesn't matter that you're posting in P&S. The point is that you've put forward an idea which is COMPLETELY non-helpful in an argument. It brings NOTHING to the discussion, which you've implicitly conceded. So, it's a waste of space and readers time.

 

Nobody is telling you that you cannot discuss this, or put forth ideas. The issue is that you're positing things which can be neither proven nor disproven, so it's NOT science... not even pseudoscience.

 

It's a Speculation. And other scientists have speculated it:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paola_Zizzi

 

How can it be completely non-helpful when we are talking about evidence for a conscious universe? That is Panpsychism. Maybe you like to discuss things without knowing the background or context?

[iNow]

How can it be completely non-helpful when we are talking about evidence for a conscious universe?

 

Wait... did you say "evidence for a conscious universe?" Where exactly was that, again? I must have missed it.

 

 

Maybe people would be more accepting of your ideas/speculations if you weren't so crude in your response to/more accepting of their valid criticisms.

Again... you openly conceded that that what you put forth couldn't be argued and couldn't be proven correct/incorrect. I rest my case.

[bombus]

Wait... did you say "evidence for a conscious universe?" Where exactly was that, again? I must have missed it.

 

 

Maybe people would be more accepting of your ideas/speculations if you weren't so crude in your response to/more accepting of their valid criticisms.

Again... you openly conceded that that what you put forth couldn't be argued and couldn't be proven correct/incorrect. I rest my case.

 

Ahem, shall I repeat it?

Maybe you like to discuss things without knowing the background or context?

 

Game, set and match to me I think.

[mooeypoo]

It might've been helpful if you posted the link along with your hypothesis, bombus.

 

Guys, let's please drop the mutual accusations and get back on topic. You might all benefit from going over the Speculation Policy. The fact this thread is in P&S does not make it a free-for-all ideafest.

 

~moo

[bombus]

It might've been helpful if you posted the link along with your hypothesis, bombus.

 

Guys, let's please drop the mutual accusations and get back on topic. You might all benefit from going over the Speculation Policy. The fact this thread is in P&S does not make it a free-for-all ideafest.

 

~moo

 

I did. Twice.

[mooeypoo]

Awesome, then there's no reason not to go back on topic.

 

I am not referring to a specific member when I ask you *all* to please get back on topic, so we can discuss the topic and not discuss the discussion.

[bombus]

OK.

 

Are we saying that artificial intelligence/consciousness (perhaps not the same thing?) could theoretically be achieved (according to some schools of thought) by a computational system comprised of ANYTHING. So long as the system functions it could be slaves in labyrinths, water in complex pipe networks, lights and mirrors, ballbearings rails and gravity...

 

Is this correct?

 

Darn it - wrong thread....!

 

Actually, maybe not. I have an idea forming.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A different thread (now mysteriously closed) highlighted that according to some theories of computation a computer could be made up of almost anything i.e., iot doesnt have to be electrons passing through a processor. It could be totally mechanical, or ball bearings in tubes under gravity, water in pipes, anything.

 

Is it possible that particles, planets, suns, solar systems, held together by gravity could constitute a computable system - hence the universe being a huge 'computer'?

[insane_alien]

possible? yes.

 

likely? about as likely as osama bin laden being found hiding out as oprah

[bombus]

Mmm. I've never seem Oprah and Osama in the same room at the same time! You might have stumbled upon something there

[artnat]

An account of my transcendent episode at

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

 

Since geocitites is shutting down Oct 2009, I've moved all the maya-gaia pages to http://maya-gaia.angelfire.com/maya-gaia_sitemap.html

[mooeypoo]

Yes, because angelfire is so much more reliable as a scientific source.

 

artnat, how about some actual science here? Like math, or evidence, or peer reviewed articles? something?

[artnat]

Yes, because angelfire is so much more reliable as a scientific source.

 

artnat, how about some actual science here? Like math, or evidence, or peer reviewed articles? something?

 

Scientist Henry Stapp is just one of the presenters at http:// http://scienceandnonduality.com/program.shtml

 

Realize that many in the scientism camp find consciousness a challenging topic and really can't accept anything as scientific unless it can be rendered mathematically. The result is that they have absolutely no evidence that their own consciousness exists other than subjective experience which they must dismiss on principle. Tragic to have to deny all explanation for what we apperceive.

[mooeypoo]

"scientism" ?

 

artnat, this is very simple. Science is empirical. We require empirical evidence.

 

Do you have any or not?

[iNow]

Realize that many in the scientism camp...

What is "scientism?"

 

 

Tragic to have to deny all explanation for what we apperceive.

What is "apperceive?"

[artnat]

"scientism" ?

 

artnat, this is very simple. Science is empirical. We require empirical evidence.

 

Do you have any or not?

 

I'm delighted to inform you that I am unaware of any empirical evidence for our consciousness. The point is do YOU have any evidence beyond your subjective experience that can prove your consciousness? If you insist on empirical evidence- there is no way for you to join other scientists in the symposium on the topic (see post above) other than as a committed skeptic.