The universe as a sentient being
Discussion
otolith said:
The idea that the universe might be sentient doesn’t seem to be materially more falsifiable or useful or really much more parsimonious than the idea that it is also having one off the wrist while sipping a giant invisible Martini.
The OP hasn’t, as far as I can see, made an attempt to explain what he means by saying “is the universe sentient”? That sentence is a grammatically acceptable sentence in English but that doesn’t mean that it makes sense. “My carrots are innocent” is also grammatically correct but ontologically meaningless. Unfortunately such statements are so common from people, who think they are saying something profound or interesting yet are just spouting literal nonsense. To be remotely interesting from a scientific perspective you would need to define the terms “universe” and “sentient”, hopefully with some reference to some actual physical phenomena that suggests that this “sentience” exists together with some predictions of the impact of the sentience that would give us a chance of testing it.
PlywoodPascal said:
juliussneezer said:
mickythefish said:
juliussneezer said:
Yes but the universe can't be sentient lolIn the words of Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Hitchen's razor might also apply, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
mickythefish said:
juliussneezer said:
Yes but the universe can't be sentient lol
It is hugely unlikely that the universe is sentient - it shows no evidence of being so.
juliussneezer said:
mickythefish said:
juliussneezer said:
Yes but the universe can't be sentient lolThere is a lot of evidence it is possible. But like gravity, still a theory.
"even systems that we don't consider animate could have a little bit of consciousness,” Koch says. “It is part and parcel of the physical.” From this perspective, the universe may not exactly be thinking, but it still has an internal experience intimately tied to our own."
Explain to me how rocks make life? Rocks no life make life? Yet saying the universe might be sentient, no a god etc but just aware is a crazy idea lol catz.
''Since Galileo’s time the physical sciences have leaped forward, explaining the workings of the tiniest quarks to the largest galaxy clusters. But explaining things that reside “only in consciousness”—the red of a sunset, say, or the bitter taste of a lemon—has proven far more difficult. Neuroscientists have identified a number of neural correlates of consciousness—brain states associated with specific mental states—but have not explained how matter forms minds in the first place.''
Edited by mickythefish on Sunday 23 June 08:15
https://neurosciencenews.com/physics-consciousness...
''Consciousness can not simply be reduced to neural activity alone, researchers say. A novel study reports the dynamics of consciousness may be understood by a newly developed conceptual and mathematical framework.''
''As strange as it sounds, the conscious experience in our brain, cannot be found or reduced to some neural activity.''
''As a result, we can’t reduce the conscious experience of what we sense, feel and think to any brain activity. We can just find correlations to these experiences.''
''This mystery is known as the hard problem of consciousness. It is such a difficult problem that until a couple of decades ago only philosophers discussed it and even today, although we have made huge progress in our understanding of the neuroscientific basis of consciousness, still there is no adequate theory that explains what consciousness is and how to solve this hard problem.''
''Consciousness can not simply be reduced to neural activity alone, researchers say. A novel study reports the dynamics of consciousness may be understood by a newly developed conceptual and mathematical framework.''
''As strange as it sounds, the conscious experience in our brain, cannot be found or reduced to some neural activity.''
''As a result, we can’t reduce the conscious experience of what we sense, feel and think to any brain activity. We can just find correlations to these experiences.''
''This mystery is known as the hard problem of consciousness. It is such a difficult problem that until a couple of decades ago only philosophers discussed it and even today, although we have made huge progress in our understanding of the neuroscientific basis of consciousness, still there is no adequate theory that explains what consciousness is and how to solve this hard problem.''
mickythefish said:
Evidence of gravity? Still a theory. Still not possible to prove how it works. You can't pick and choose what you see fit as "yeh science."
There is a lot of evidence it is possible. But like gravity, still a theory.
"even systems that we don't consider animate could have a little bit of consciousness,” Koch says. “It is part and parcel of the physical.” From this perspective, the universe may not exactly be thinking, but it still has an internal experience intimately tied to our own."
Explain to me how rocks make life? Rocks no life make life? Yet saying the universe might be sentient, no a god etc but just aware is a crazy idea lol catz.
''Since Galileo’s time the physical sciences have leaped forward, explaining the workings of the tiniest quarks to the largest galaxy clusters. But explaining things that reside “only in consciousness”—the red of a sunset, say, or the bitter taste of a lemon—has proven far more difficult. Neuroscientists have identified a number of neural correlates of consciousness—brain states associated with specific mental states—but have not explained how matter forms minds in the first place.''
Life didn’t come from rocks - what are you talking about? You keep bringing that up as if it means something. There is a lot of evidence it is possible. But like gravity, still a theory.
"even systems that we don't consider animate could have a little bit of consciousness,” Koch says. “It is part and parcel of the physical.” From this perspective, the universe may not exactly be thinking, but it still has an internal experience intimately tied to our own."
Explain to me how rocks make life? Rocks no life make life? Yet saying the universe might be sentient, no a god etc but just aware is a crazy idea lol catz.
''Since Galileo’s time the physical sciences have leaped forward, explaining the workings of the tiniest quarks to the largest galaxy clusters. But explaining things that reside “only in consciousness”—the red of a sunset, say, or the bitter taste of a lemon—has proven far more difficult. Neuroscientists have identified a number of neural correlates of consciousness—brain states associated with specific mental states—but have not explained how matter forms minds in the first place.''
Edited by mickythefish on Sunday 23 June 08:15
I’m struggling to believe you’ve studied any science or STEM since whatever you were forced to do at school, given the nonsense written above.
DanL said:
Life didn’t come from rocks - what are you talking about? You keep bringing that up as if it means something.
I’m struggling to believe you’ve studied any science or STEM since whatever you were forced to do at school, given the nonsense written above.
''Researchers on the origin of life now conclude that rocks and minerals must have played key roles in virtually every phase of life’s emergence—they catalyzed the synthesis of key biomolecules; they selected, protected, and concentrated those molecules; they jump-started metabolism; and they may even have acted as life’s first genetic system.''I’m struggling to believe you’ve studied any science or STEM since whatever you were forced to do at school, given the nonsense written above.
hazen.carnegiescience.edu/sites/default/files/186-ElementsIntro.pdf
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/life...
''Life and Rocks May Have Co-Evolved on Earth A Carnegie geologist makes the case that minerals have evolved over time and may have helped spark life''
mickythefish said:
DanL said:
Life didn’t come from rocks - what are you talking about? You keep bringing that up as if it means something.
I’m struggling to believe you’ve studied any science or STEM since whatever you were forced to do at school, given the nonsense written above.
''Researchers on the origin of life now conclude that rocks and minerals must have played key roles in virtually every phase of life’s emergence—they catalyzed the synthesis of key biomolecules; they selected, protected, and concentrated those molecules; they jump-started metabolism; and they may even have acted as life’s first genetic system.''I’m struggling to believe you’ve studied any science or STEM since whatever you were forced to do at school, given the nonsense written above.
hazen.carnegiescience.edu/sites/default/files/186-ElementsIntro.pdf
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/life...
''Life and Rocks May Have Co-Evolved on Earth A Carnegie geologist makes the case that minerals have evolved over time and may have helped spark life''
Life didn’t come from rocks - rocks and minerals were clearly present as physics turned into chemistry, which turned into biology…Edit: wait, let me go back a bit. Are you saying life came from rocks, didn’t come from rocks, or something else in this bit of word salad?
mickythefish said:
Explain to me how rocks make life? Rocks no life make life? Yet saying the universe might be sentient, no a god etc but just aware is a crazy idea lol catz.
Edited by DanL on Sunday 23 June 08:44
mickythefish said:
https://neurosciencenews.com/physics-consciousness...
''Consciousness can not simply be reduced to neural activity alone, researchers say. A novel study reports the dynamics of consciousness may be understood by a newly developed conceptual and mathematical framework.''
''As strange as it sounds, the conscious experience in our brain, cannot be found or reduced to some neural activity.''
''As a result, we can’t reduce the conscious experience of what we sense, feel and think to any brain activity. We can just find correlations to these experiences.''
''This mystery is known as the hard problem of consciousness. It is such a difficult problem that until a couple of decades ago only philosophers discussed it and even today, although we have made huge progress in our understanding of the neuroscientific basis of consciousness, still there is no adequate theory that explains what consciousness is and how to solve this hard problem.''
Copy pasting bits of text out of context from something you don’t understand is not really helpful and doesn’t support whatever nonsense you are trying to push. ''Consciousness can not simply be reduced to neural activity alone, researchers say. A novel study reports the dynamics of consciousness may be understood by a newly developed conceptual and mathematical framework.''
''As strange as it sounds, the conscious experience in our brain, cannot be found or reduced to some neural activity.''
''As a result, we can’t reduce the conscious experience of what we sense, feel and think to any brain activity. We can just find correlations to these experiences.''
''This mystery is known as the hard problem of consciousness. It is such a difficult problem that until a couple of decades ago only philosophers discussed it and even today, although we have made huge progress in our understanding of the neuroscientific basis of consciousness, still there is no adequate theory that explains what consciousness is and how to solve this hard problem.''
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the debates about consciousness knows of the “hard problem” and the difficulty linking our subjective experience of consciousness with the underlying physical activities in the brain that are responsible for consciousness. What has that got to do with the universe being sentient?
No I demonstrating the fact all you people who think you are intellectuals are basing your arguments on theories, deciding which theory is best and suits your own thinking.
I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
mickythefish said:
No I demonstrating the fact all you people who think you are intellectuals are basing your arguments on theories, deciding which theory is best and suits your own thinking.
I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
No, we're not "deciding which theory is best and suits our own thinking", we are accepting the theorys that have empirical evidence to back them up. I did point this out in a previous post, and I also linked to an in-depth explanation of the meaning of the word 'theory'. Yet here we are again.I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
You're just going round in circles.
You seem to think that thinking different to others makes you exceptional. It doesn't.
I know you never said you're an intellectual, nobody's accusing you of that. Don't think anybody here has claimed to be an intellectual either.
This thread doesn't upset me. On the contrary. I'm laughing.
Edited by Super Sonic on Sunday 23 June 10:44
Skeptisk said:
ATG said:
Yeah, but your perspective is rooted in some philosophical assumptions that you've made. This is inescapable. Your assumptions may seem intuitively obvious to you, but you can't conclude that they are the only tenable assumptions that someone could make. None of this is about superstition or religion or science; it's a step before that.
It would be easier to follow your point if you were more specific about what philosophical assumptions I am making and the alternatives. Clearly I am assuming there is an external reality and that we don’t live in a simulation. Yes that is of course a possibility, but only because if you say that the simulation is indistinguishable from an external reality. So then it is pointless alternative and using Occam’s razor should be ignored as it introduces complexity for no good reason. I’m sure there are other similar assumptions that accord with our understanding of reality eg we assume that physical laws and fundamental constants will remain the same tomorrow as they are today (the universe as it currently is couldn’t exist without that). Again there is no proof that will be the case. But to question that is just philosophical navel gazing best done by first year philosophy students in the pub!
Super Sonic said:
mickythefish said:
No I demonstrating the fact all you people who think you are intellectuals are basing your arguments on theories, deciding which theory is best and suits your own thinking.
I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
No, we're not "deciding which theory is best and suits our own thinking", we are accepting the theorys that have empirical evidence to back them up. I did point this out in a previous post, and I also linked to an in-depth explanation of the meaning of the word 'theory'. Yet here we are again.I've never said I'm a intellectual, I obviously think differently to others, which I'm happy about.
Maybe this thread isn't for you if it makes you so upset thinking differently?
You're just going round in circles.
You seem to think that thinking different to others makes you exceptional. It doesn't.
I know you never said you're an intellectual, nobody's accusing you of that. Don't think anybody here has claimed to be an intellectual either.
This thread doesn't upset me. On the contrary. I'm laughing.
Edited by Super Sonic on Sunday 23 June 10:44
ATG said:
To take an extreme example, you can assume that consciousness is fundamental, not an emergent property. You can make the assumption that any model of the world you dream up must include a strong version of free will, i.e. the future is not determined entirely by the past because conscious things are genuinely free to make decisions.
You can make assumptions, but that doesn't mean they're true. People assume god is real. Other people assume he isn't. They can't both be true.You don't need consciousness to have a future that is not determined entirely by the past. This doesn't support your assumption.
Edited by Super Sonic on Sunday 23 June 10:55
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
To take an extreme example, you can assume that consciousness is fundamental, not an emergent property. You can make the assumption that any model of the world you dream up must include a strong version of free will, i.e. the future is not determined entirely by the past because conscious things are genuinely free to make decisions.
You can make assumptions, but that doesn't mean they're true. People assume god is real. Other people assume he isn't. They can't both be true.You don't need consciousness to have a future that is not determined entirely by the past. This doesn't support your assumption.
Edited by Super Sonic on Sunday 23 June 10:55
Randomness would make the future unpredictable, but that doesn't relate to rejecting the idea of a block universe on the grounds that a block universe is incompatible with free will. If you believe in free will then the future can't be either entirely determined nor fundamentally random. You have to somehow have some agency. I cannot see how free will is possible without some dualist weirdness, and free will isn't on my list of axioms, but if you look at people like Roger Penrose, it's clearly up there on their lists and they strive to come up with fundamental physical models that allow it.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff