The universe as a sentient being
Discussion
juliussneezer said:
mickythefish said:
juliussneezer said:
Yes but the universe can't be sentient lolPlywoodPascal said:
just to point out the existence of evidence or not has no bearing on whether the universe can be sentient or not, only on what we can safely conclude about whether it is sentient or not.
Not sure I understand this.As I understand it, in general, if we have evidence for something, we can say it exists. If it exists, then by extension it can exist.
If we have no evidence, then we cannot say either way if something exists. As to wether something can exist, I'm not so sure.
Super Sonic said:
PlywoodPascal said:
just to point out the existence of evidence or not has no bearing on whether the universe can be sentient or not, only on what we can safely conclude about whether it is sentient or not.
Not sure I understand this.As I understand it, in general, if we have evidence for something, we can say it exists. If it exists, then by extension it can exist.
If we have no evidence, then we cannot say either way if something exists. As to wether something can exist, I'm not so sure.
i.e. what I know (or am able to know) about whether you ate this evening does not change the fact of you having eaten (or not). it just means that I cannot know whether you did (or did not). Your 'state' is what it is, whether I (can) know about it or not.
as you say, there are only:
- things we have evidence for and may safely conclude are true
- things we have no evidence for for, and thus cannot safely make any conclusion as to their truth or falsehood
but a thing can be true, even if we do not have any evidence for it. we just cannot then know it to be true (until, perhaps, we later get some evidence for it).
a good example is... I dunno.. oxygen. oxygen in the atmosphere was there being breathed by generations of humans before one of us (actually, several) amassed sufficient evidence to know that it was true that oxygen existed in the atmosphere. the previous lack of evidence did not mean there was no oxygen in the atmosphere.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Saturday 22 June 23:38
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Saturday 22 June 23:40
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Saturday 22 June 23:42
So if you saw me eat dinner you would know I had dinner but if you didn't see me eat you wouldn't know if I had dinner or not? That makes sense, but I'm not sure if that means you cannot know.
Do you mean cannot know with the evidence you have 'now', or it is not actually possible to find out?
To return to your original point, if there were evidence that something did exist, surely that proves it can, so I would say only a lack of evidence about wether something does exist leaves us unable to say if something can exist.
Do you mean cannot know with the evidence you have 'now', or it is not actually possible to find out?
To return to your original point, if there were evidence that something did exist, surely that proves it can, so I would say only a lack of evidence about wether something does exist leaves us unable to say if something can exist.
Edited by Super Sonic on Sunday 23 June 00:02
I don’t have evidence of SuperSonic eating dinner either, so my current theories are that either he can photosynthesise, or that he is a being of pure energy existing in a parallel universe and using quantum entanglement to communicate with us. Here is a link to a New Scientist article about symbiotic algae in corals, and here is one about quantum entanglement, neither of which I understood.
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?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff