The universe as a sentient being
Discussion
mickythefish said:
Let's say we look as science as the way to validate what we see and interact with us.
What happens if these results were actually just an illusion, created to the rules we set out to find.
Yes it all sounds wacky do, but we see the world with ex monkeys eyes and a lot of things seem to fit too well. What it these laws are all an illusion of rules that didn't actually exist?
Hence the universe being in total control deciding what rules it wants us to see and Ives it doesn't?
believe it or not, some had this thought before.What happens if these results were actually just an illusion, created to the rules we set out to find.
Yes it all sounds wacky do, but we see the world with ex monkeys eyes and a lot of things seem to fit too well. What it these laws are all an illusion of rules that didn't actually exist?
Hence the universe being in total control deciding what rules it wants us to see and Ives it doesn't?
he was called plato, and he created an analogy called 'plato's cave'.
it's famous in philosophy
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 21:45
mickythefish said:
Maybe better to dumb it down a bit.
For a long time it was thought consciousness worked only in humans. Well they have found it other animals. The mechanics of consciousness works in the state that is quantum. We are finding evidence that this state is fully connected and communicate at levels we can't currently comprehend.
An example is the mechanism of higher state energy in cells, where biophotons are produced . It was only very recently that they have identified this as a way for cells to communicate through matter and instantaneously.
So maybe people need to read up in emerging science before making very ignorant comments?
third line here is woo.For a long time it was thought consciousness worked only in humans. Well they have found it other animals. The mechanics of consciousness works in the state that is quantum. We are finding evidence that this state is fully connected and communicate at levels we can't currently comprehend.
An example is the mechanism of higher state energy in cells, where biophotons are produced . It was only very recently that they have identified this as a way for cells to communicate through matter and instantaneously.
So maybe people need to read up in emerging science before making very ignorant comments?
PlywoodPascal said:
mickythefish said:
Maybe better to dumb it down a bit.
For a long time it was thought consciousness worked only in humans. Well they have found it other animals. The mechanics of consciousness works in the state that is quantum. We are finding evidence that this state is fully connected and communicate at levels we can't currently comprehend.
An example is the mechanism of higher state energy in cells, where biophotons are produced . It was only very recently that they have identified this as a way for cells to communicate through matter and instantaneously.
So maybe people need to read up in emerging science before making very ignorant comments?
third line here is woo.For a long time it was thought consciousness worked only in humans. Well they have found it other animals. The mechanics of consciousness works in the state that is quantum. We are finding evidence that this state is fully connected and communicate at levels we can't currently comprehend.
An example is the mechanism of higher state energy in cells, where biophotons are produced . It was only very recently that they have identified this as a way for cells to communicate through matter and instantaneously.
So maybe people need to read up in emerging science before making very ignorant comments?
PlywoodPascal said:
believe it or not, some had this thought before.
he was called plato, and he created an analogy called 'plato's cave'.
it's famous in philosophy
While it's true that Plato did believe that what we perceive is not everything, and that there are things invisible to us (he knew about magnetism), I don't think he extrapolated that to 'the universe is sentient' like mickeythefish and Panamax have. That's just wack.he was called plato, and he created an analogy called 'plato's cave'.
it's famous in philosophy
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 21:45
Edited by Super Sonic on Monday 17th June 21:58
Super Sonic said:
Panamax said:
Separately, I have from time to time wondered whether each of our atoms is a sentient universe in itself and whether our universe is simply one atom in a much bigger sentient universe. There seems to be so much empty space in an atom. 
what people are suggesting here is called 'pan-psychism;
broadly, there are three explanations of consciousness and how it comes about.
The earliest - dating back to Greeks but most closely associated with Descartes is called dualism. Dualism suggests that the MIND and the BRAIN (or any matter) are different. That is, that there are physical processes that happen, but that processes associated with consciousness are distinct and different from them. That's convenient if you want to maintain a belief in the soul in an age where an understanding of physics and other sciences is rapidly developing.
Physicalism is the view that EVERYTHING is physical. Consciousness is a process that emerges from entirely physically explainable events, on/in physical substrates.
The third is the idea that everything is conscious or contains consciousness (or the slightly different 'mentality' as philosophers would prefer to say) to some degree. That's called (as I said) pan psychism. That a human has a rich conscious experience, a cow has a slightly less rich one, a flea perhaps less, but that you can continue down, a blade of grass even less so, a pebble again less, a molecule, less still, an electron, yes, still some degree of consciousness.
The justification for panpsychism is that it avoids the necessity to have to make 'consciousness' a special thing - it just is there, in everything. It is attractive because it avoids the need to account for human (or other greater) consciousness in terms of processes which don’t involve consciousness. instead you built it up from simpler forms of consciousness.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 22:05
Super Sonic said:
While it's true that Plato did believe that what we perceive is not everything, and that there are things invisible to us (he knew about magnetism), I don't think he extrapolated that to 'the universe is sentient' like mickeythefish and Panamax have. That's just wack.
that's why I bolded the bit I was referring to Edited by Super Sonic on Monday 17th June 21:58
but there are greeks who argued for panpsychism or advanced that others thought so. Aristotle: “some say a soul is mingled in the whole universe—which is perhaps why Thales thought that everything is full of gods”. Anaxagoras "everything is in everything".
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 22:01
PlywoodPascal said:
Super Sonic said:
While it's true that Plato did believe that what we perceive is not everything, and that there are things invisible to us (he knew about magnetism), I don't think he extrapolated that to 'the universe is sentient' like mickeythefish and Panamax have. That's just wack.
that's why I bolded the bit I was referring to Edited by Super Sonic on Monday 17th June 21:58
but there are greeks who argued for panpsychism or advanced that others thought so. Aristotle: “some say a soul is mingled in the whole universe—which is perhaps why Thales thought that everything is full of gods”. Anaxagoras "everything is in everything".
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 22:01
Super Sonic said:
PlywoodPascal said:
Super Sonic said:
While it's true that Plato did believe that what we perceive is not everything, and that there are things invisible to us (he knew about magnetism), I don't think he extrapolated that to 'the universe is sentient' like mickeythefish and Panamax have. That's just wack.
that's why I bolded the bit I was referring to Edited by Super Sonic on Monday 17th June 21:58
but there are greeks who argued for panpsychism or advanced that others thought so. Aristotle: “some say a soul is mingled in the whole universe—which is perhaps why Thales thought that everything is full of gods”. Anaxagoras "everything is in everything".
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 22:01
Transpose that to today and how easy it to separate tomorrow's fantasy from today's belief.
Super Sonic said:
Well yes, granted, but the Ancient Greeks did believe in a multitude of gods. None of these beliefs had or have any basis in science whatsoever. The Ancient Greeks did arguably start us on our journey of science, what they called 'natural philosophy' but they were still a very superstitious people. We have learned a lot since then, and although we still have a lot to learn, there's no reason to believe 'new age' superstitions.
I draw a distinction between a theory, a belief, a hypothesis, and an interesting possibility this is firmly into that latter category. I would argue the problem of consciousness is rather complicated by timescales. I think consciousness in our brains arises from series of coupled chemical reactions. If you slow them down, then we die and aren't concious anymore.
But a brain, and 'our' timescale aren't the only place or rate at which a bunch of chemical reactions can be coupled together.
There's nothing to say clouds of gas in the atmosphere of Jupiter could not be conscious.
Or networks of fungi.
Or networks of interactions and nuclear reactions in plasma in the earliest moments of the universe.
Or indeed networks of matter distributed through galaxies and across the universe.
These systems could just be conscious on a much slower timescales and across much bigger networks than we are.
as long as you believe consciousness arises from physical processes (I suspect you do given your position
) then there is no good argument that it should be limited to specific timescales or specific types of interactions. Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 22:25
PlywoodPascal said:
just quoting this because it's the clearest statement of this point of several in the thread.
what people are suggesting here is called 'pan-psychism;
broadly, there are three explanations of consciousness and how it comes about.
The earliest - dating back to Greeks but most closely associated with Descartes is called dualism. Dualism suggests that the MIND and the BRAIN (or any matter) are different. That is, that there are physical processes that happen, but that processes associated with consciousness are distinct and different from them. That's convenient if you want to maintain a belief in the soul in an age where an understanding of physics and other sciences is rapidly developing.
Physicalism is the view that EVERYTHING is physical. Consciousness is a process that emerges from entirely physically explainable events, on/in physical substrates.
The third is the idea that everything is conscious or contains consciousness (or the slightly different 'mentality' as philosophers would prefer to say) to some degree. That's called (as I said) pan psychism. That a human has a rich conscious experience, a cow has a slightly less rich one, a flea perhaps less, but that you can continue down, a blade of grass even less so, a pebble again less, a molecule, less still, an electron, yes, still some degree of consciousness.
The justification for panpsychism is that it avoids the necessity to have to make 'consciousness' a special thing - it just is there, in everything. It is attractive because it avoids the need to account for human (or other greater) consciousness in terms of processes which don’t involve consciousness. instead you built it up from simpler forms of consciousness.
While this IS very interesting, it is all conjecture. One of these could be true, or none of them. Just to take your last point about human consciousness being built up from simpler forms of consciousness, although it is almost certain that human consciousness evolved as humans did. It has been shown that animals are conscious, and it would seem an essential thing for animals to find food, avoid predators etc.what people are suggesting here is called 'pan-psychism;
broadly, there are three explanations of consciousness and how it comes about.
The earliest - dating back to Greeks but most closely associated with Descartes is called dualism. Dualism suggests that the MIND and the BRAIN (or any matter) are different. That is, that there are physical processes that happen, but that processes associated with consciousness are distinct and different from them. That's convenient if you want to maintain a belief in the soul in an age where an understanding of physics and other sciences is rapidly developing.
Physicalism is the view that EVERYTHING is physical. Consciousness is a process that emerges from entirely physically explainable events, on/in physical substrates.
The third is the idea that everything is conscious or contains consciousness (or the slightly different 'mentality' as philosophers would prefer to say) to some degree. That's called (as I said) pan psychism. That a human has a rich conscious experience, a cow has a slightly less rich one, a flea perhaps less, but that you can continue down, a blade of grass even less so, a pebble again less, a molecule, less still, an electron, yes, still some degree of consciousness.
The justification for panpsychism is that it avoids the necessity to have to make 'consciousness' a special thing - it just is there, in everything. It is attractive because it avoids the need to account for human (or other greater) consciousness in terms of processes which don’t involve consciousness. instead you built it up from simpler forms of consciousness.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 22:05
It is possible though, that consciousness emerged from non conscious precursors, just as living things emerged from the non living. Emergent principles is a relatively recent concept arising from chaos theory.
PlywoodPascal said:
I draw a distinction between a theory, a belief, a hypothesis, and an interesting possibility this is firmly into that latter category.
I would argue the problem of consciousness is rather complicated by timescales. I think consciousness in our brains arises from series of coupled chemical reactions. If you slow them down, then we die and aren't concious anymore.
But a brain, and 'our' timescale aren't the only place or rate at which a bunch of chemical reactions can be coupled together.
There's nothing to say clouds of gas in the atmosphere of Jupiter could not be conscious.
Or networks of fungi.
Or networks of interactions and nuclear reactions in plasma in the earliest moments of the universe.
Or indeed networks of matter distributed through galaxies and across the universe.
These systems could just be conscious on a much slower timescales and across much bigger networks than we are.
as long as you believe consciousness arises from physical processes (I suspect you do given your position ) then there is no good argument that it should be limited to specific timescales or specific types of interactions.
Paragraph 1, absolutely agree! this is firmly into that latter category. I would argue the problem of consciousness is rather complicated by timescales. I think consciousness in our brains arises from series of coupled chemical reactions. If you slow them down, then we die and aren't concious anymore.
But a brain, and 'our' timescale aren't the only place or rate at which a bunch of chemical reactions can be coupled together.
There's nothing to say clouds of gas in the atmosphere of Jupiter could not be conscious.
Or networks of fungi.
Or networks of interactions and nuclear reactions in plasma in the earliest moments of the universe.
Or indeed networks of matter distributed through galaxies and across the universe.
These systems could just be conscious on a much slower timescales and across much bigger networks than we are.
as long as you believe consciousness arises from physical processes (I suspect you do given your position
) then there is no good argument that it should be limited to specific timescales or specific types of interactions. Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 22:25
P2, I wouldn't disagree, but would add 'electrical activity' to chemical reactions. This is used to measure consciousness in certain contexts (sleep, coma)
The bit about the clouds of Jupiter etc is conjecture, but the bit about fungi is v. interesting. Fungi are considered in some ways to be closer to animals than plants in some ways, including having a closer common ancestor (cladistically?) and studies on slime mold are fascinating.
Fungi are, however, known to be living things.
Planets and galaxies are not known to be.
I think consciousness may arise from physical processes ie emergent principal, as it known that as systems cross a threshold of complexity their behaviour changes. This is established fact. I don't think galaxies or planets have achieved this level of complexity. I have no evidence for this, but when you compare the complexity of galaxies etc and eg proteins, the difference is orders of magnitude.
As you said at the start there's a difference between an idea, a belief, a hypothesis and a theory.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff