The universe as a sentient being
Discussion
EmailAddress said:
A lot of them did have a basis in science. It shot off into fantasy fairly quickly granted.
Transpose that to today and how easy it to separate tomorrow's fantasy from today's belief.
The philosophers had a brief moment and advanced mankind immeasurably, restating the ideas of others and codifying their own. Then the mystics gained the ear of the merchants and the philosophers were gradually marginalised and persecuted for blasphemy. Mumbo jumbo made it easier to support the stain of slavery. Transpose that to today and how easy it to separate tomorrow's fantasy from today's belief.
Super Sonic said:
Paragraph 1, absolutely agree!
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.
Ah but proteins are just made from 20 odd amino acids, themselves made from just four (5 if pedantic) elements/types of atom. That’s all too simple for the basis of consciousness! 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.
(And I’m ignoring metalloenzymes here)
And from simple solar systems and galaxies we end up at structures like these https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 23:12
hidetheelephants said:
EmailAddress said:
A lot of them did have a basis in science. It shot off into fantasy fairly quickly granted.
Transpose that to today and how easy it to separate tomorrow's fantasy from today's belief.
The philosophers had a brief moment and advanced mankind immeasurably, restating the ideas of others and codifying their own. Then the mystics gained the ear of the merchants and the philosophers were gradually marginalised and persecuted for blasphemy. Mumbo jumbo made it easier to support the stain of slavery. Transpose that to today and how easy it to separate tomorrow's fantasy from today's belief.
Super Sonic said:
I don't think he extrapolated that to 'the universe is sentient' like mickeythefish and Panamax have. That's just wack.
I think it's important to separate the concepts of "sentience" and "consciousness". Sentience is a much easier box to tick than consciousness.Sentience = the simplest or most primitive form of cognition, awareness of stimuli without association or interpretation.
Consciousness = at its simplest, awareness of internal and external existence. Its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and scientists. Opinions differ about what should even be considered consciousness.
Is a human sentient? Yes
Is a dog sentient? Yes
Is a worm sentient? Yes
Is a tree sentient? Debateable
Is a rock sentient? Apparently not
Is a normal human conscious? Yes
Is a damaged human conscious? Good question
Is a dog conscious? That's starting to get tricky
Is a worm conscious? Surely not
Is a rock conscious? I very much doubt it
Are some humans more conscious than others? That's a BIG question.
Is consciousness a black & white binary matter? Arguably not. I've been involved around animal welfare on the agricultural scale (as opposed to house pets) and the boffins' general view seems to be that consciousness is grey-scale. i.e. some species have more consciousness than others.
And then you get to the tricky human matter of how consciousness and morality may interact. At which point we're heading perilously close to religion.
I was brought up in an environment where it was believed that "without religion there would be no morality". I think that's absolute hogwash. Once you accept (if you accept) that all religions are made up by people then it seems absolutely apparent that people can invent a system of morality that isn't dependent upon the supernatural.
Thank God for philosophy.
PlywoodPascal said:
Ah but proteins are just made from 20 odd amino acids, themselves made from just four (5 if pedantic) elements/types of atom. That’s all too simple for the basis of consciousness!
(And I’m ignoring metalloenzymes here)
And from simple solar systems and galaxies we end up at structures like these https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament
And yet researchers reckon there are between 10,000 and several billion species of protein from a quick Google. It's not the number of ingredients, but the way there combined that introduces complexity. Doesn't DNA have just four bases? (And I’m ignoring metalloenzymes here)
And from simple solar systems and galaxies we end up at structures like these https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Monday 17th June 23:12
I would argue that a galaxy filament isn't necessarily any more complex than a galaxy, just bigger. A galaxy shows structure, superclusters voids and filaments don't, at least not on any scale we have yet discovered. If you look at the homogeneity of the CMB it would seem complexity decreases with scale, but this is right on the limits of understanding and the James Web telescope will hopefully enlighten us here.
Panamax said:
I think it's important to separate the concepts of "sentience" and "consciousness". Sentience is a much easier box to tick than consciousness.
Sentience = the simplest or most primitive form of cognition, awareness of stimuli without association or interpretation.
Consciousness = at its simplest, awareness of internal and external existence. Its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and scientists. Opinions differ about what should even be considered consciousness.
Is a human sentient? Yes
Is a dog sentient? Yes
Is a worm sentient? Yes
Is a tree sentient? Debateable
Is a rock sentient? Apparently not
Is a normal human conscious? Yes
Is a damaged human conscious? Good question
Is a dog conscious? That's starting to get tricky
Is a worm conscious? Surely not
Is a rock conscious? I very much doubt it
Are some humans more conscious than others? That's a BIG question.
Is consciousness a black & white binary matter? Arguably not. I've been involved around animal welfare on the agricultural scale (as opposed to house pets) and the boffins' general view seems to be that consciousness is grey-scale. i.e. some species have more consciousness than others.
And then you get to the tricky human matter of how consciousness and morality may interact. At which point we're heading perilously close to religion.
I was brought up in an environment where it was believed that "without religion there would be no morality". I think that's absolute hogwash. Once you accept (if you accept) that all religions are made up by people then it seems absolutely apparent that people can invent a system of morality that isn't dependent upon the supernatural.
Thank God for philosophy.
Well now you're talking sense. A bit different from " I have from time to time wondered..." (I don't think you need me to continue!Sentience = the simplest or most primitive form of cognition, awareness of stimuli without association or interpretation.
Consciousness = at its simplest, awareness of internal and external existence. Its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and scientists. Opinions differ about what should even be considered consciousness.
Is a human sentient? Yes
Is a dog sentient? Yes
Is a worm sentient? Yes
Is a tree sentient? Debateable
Is a rock sentient? Apparently not
Is a normal human conscious? Yes
Is a damaged human conscious? Good question
Is a dog conscious? That's starting to get tricky
Is a worm conscious? Surely not
Is a rock conscious? I very much doubt it
Are some humans more conscious than others? That's a BIG question.
Is consciousness a black & white binary matter? Arguably not. I've been involved around animal welfare on the agricultural scale (as opposed to house pets) and the boffins' general view seems to be that consciousness is grey-scale. i.e. some species have more consciousness than others.
And then you get to the tricky human matter of how consciousness and morality may interact. At which point we're heading perilously close to religion.
I was brought up in an environment where it was believed that "without religion there would be no morality". I think that's absolute hogwash. Once you accept (if you accept) that all religions are made up by people then it seems absolutely apparent that people can invent a system of morality that isn't dependent upon the supernatural.
Thank God for philosophy.
I agree that you can draw a distinction between sentience and consciousness, but to do that you need to clarify your definition of each. For the discussion here, I think we can stick with 'consciousness' YMMV.
I think a dog is definitely conscious. It can perceive it's surroundings. It can feel hunger pain etc.
As for a worm idk, but don't they try to resist being eating by birds by 'grabbing on to the soil' this would imply it wants to stay alive which would ,imo, imply consciousness. I would say there are degrees of consciousness, as a worm can't see, a dog is colourblind, a human can't hear or smell stuff dogs can, and dogs can't do abstract algebra. As for consciousness and morality, I think they're two separate issues. I think morality arises from altruism and other societal constructs. I agree with all your points about religion though, and also your last ironic TGFP!
Am interested in the difference between sentience and consciousness though, am gonna do some internetting.
... after a quick Google, and considering what Panamax put above, I am 'conscious' of the fact that the word itself can be ambiguous. I was using it in the sense of aware of ones surroundings and stimulus, as opposed to 'unconscious'. I should probably be using the word 'sentient', as Panamax has pointed out.
Edited by Super Sonic on Monday 17th June 23:50
Edited by Super Sonic on Tuesday 18th June 00:16
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-cons...
""Sir Roger Penrose, who was among the first academics to propose we go beyond neuroscience when looking at consciousness.
He says we should strongly consider the role of quantum mechanics and in his book published in 1989 "The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics" he argued that human consciousness is non-algorithmic and a product of quantum effects.""
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious
I guess for some people it is hard to imagine that the people in the past night have got it correct about the universe. Yes all theories but gravity is still a theory as well .
""Sir Roger Penrose, who was among the first academics to propose we go beyond neuroscience when looking at consciousness.
He says we should strongly consider the role of quantum mechanics and in his book published in 1989 "The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics" he argued that human consciousness is non-algorithmic and a product of quantum effects.""
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious
I guess for some people it is hard to imagine that the people in the past night have got it correct about the universe. Yes all theories but gravity is still a theory as well .
Edited by mickythefish on Tuesday 18th June 06:47
mickythefish said:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-cons...
""Sir Roger Penrose, who was among the first academics to propose we go beyond neuroscience when looking at consciousness.
He says we should strongly consider the role of quantum mechanics and in his book published in 1989 "The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics" he argued that human consciousness is non-algorithmic and a product of quantum effects.""
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious
I guess for some people it is hard to imagine that the people in the past night have got it correct about the universe. Yes all theories but gravity is still a theory as well .
Looking at both these articles, one calls panpsychism a philosophical point of view, and the other describes it as a concept. Neither describe it as a theory. A theory is backed up by a body of empirical evidence. There is no evidence for panpsychism. Next you'll be claiming flt earth or creationism are theories. ""Sir Roger Penrose, who was among the first academics to propose we go beyond neuroscience when looking at consciousness.
He says we should strongly consider the role of quantum mechanics and in his book published in 1989 "The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics" he argued that human consciousness is non-algorithmic and a product of quantum effects.""
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious
I guess for some people it is hard to imagine that the people in the past night have got it correct about the universe. Yes all theories but gravity is still a theory as well .
Edited by mickythefish on Tuesday 18th June 06:47
"Theory - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Seems odd to compare to flat earth but obviously you don't like the view, theory etc. I get that people are closed minded nowadays makes them feel content. But sometimes people think differently to the normal people and they will always get a hard time, that is behaviours rooted in our past.
Life evolved from inorganic materials not sure if you knew that theory/viewpoint? Non living matter created living matter hmmm.
Life evolved from inorganic materials not sure if you knew that theory/viewpoint? Non living matter created living matter hmmm.
mickythefish said:
Seems odd to compare to flat earth but obviously you don't like the view, theory etc. I get that people are closed minded nowadays makes them feel content. But sometimes people think differently to the normal people and they will always get a hard time, that is behaviours rooted in our past.
Life evolved from inorganic materials not sure if you knew that theory/viewpoint? Non living matter created living matter hmmm.
I was comparing to flat earth because you were implying that panpsychism is a theory, which it isn't. You said gravity is a theory, and tried to imply that panpsychism, as a theory, is equally as valid as gravity. That's exactly what flat earthers say. Again, you may want to learn the meaning of the word theory. I did include a link to make it easy for you.Life evolved from inorganic materials not sure if you knew that theory/viewpoint? Non living matter created living matter hmmm.
Life evolved from organic compounds ie. carbon + nitrogen etc. "Theory/viewpoint" are two completely different things.
"Non living matter created living matter hmmm" is ambiguous.
Edited by Super Sonic on Tuesday 18th June 11:53
mickythefish said:
Life evolved from inorganic materials not sure if you knew that theory/viewpoint? Non living matter created living matter hmmm.
This is to my mind a fascinating aspect if, as I suspect, it has to be correct. Otherwise one ends up drifting back into the world of the supernatural with a "creator" and all that kind of stuff.Someone mentioned ants and in fact I nearly mentioned them in my earlier post. It seems to me that a "nest" of ants, bees or whatever has a sentience that arises somehow from collective existence as opposed to individual existence. If one pushes that concept a bit further it's not difficult to believe that human morality can exist without the need for any supernatural or religious connection.
All fascinating stuff IMO. Free your mind and the rest will follow, as En Vogue fans will recall. Mind you, they were probably soul sisters and soul is a word that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. It seems to me that possibly consciousness = soul.
EmailAddress said:
If a dog is sentient. How is a Roomba not.
Independent action.
Decision making.
Logic.
Learning.
What about an Ant. If it's not sentient. Does it have a soul. The criteria given for soul definition cross with a Roomba quite heavily.
The Roomba doesn't act independently, we tell it what to do.Independent action.
Decision making.
Logic.
Learning.
What about an Ant. If it's not sentient. Does it have a soul. The criteria given for soul definition cross with a Roomba quite heavily.
what you've done is just demonstrated one of the key problems with consciousness: from the outside, you (or I) couldn't tell the difference between a human who WAS conscious (like you are, and like I promise I am) and one who its just a human shell that has been programmed to behave as if it's conscious, even there there is no consciousness present within it.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 18th June 14:22
PlywoodPascal said:
The Roomba doesn't act independently, we tell it what to do.
what you've done is just demonstrated one of the key problems with consciousness: from the outside, you (or I) couldn't tell the difference between a human who WAS conscious (like you are, and like I promise I am) and one who its just a human shell that has been programmed to behave as if it's conscious, even there there is no consciousness present within it.
There might be a tricky question around AI at some point as it progresses, related directly to that. Is it actually smart and conscious, or is it just acting in such a way that we think it could be, due to the way it structures its responses…what you've done is just demonstrated one of the key problems with consciousness: from the outside, you (or I) couldn't tell the difference between a human who WAS conscious (like you are, and like I promise I am) and one who its just a human shell that has been programmed to behave as if it's conscious, even there there is no consciousness present within it.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 18th June 14:22
Panamax said:
This is to my mind a fascinating aspect if, as I suspect, it has to be correct. Otherwise one ends up drifting back into the world of the supernatural with a "creator" and all that kind of stuff.
Someone mentioned ants and in fact I nearly mentioned them in my earlier post. It seems to me that a "nest" of ants, bees or whatever has a sentience that arises somehow from collective existence as opposed to individual existence. If one pushes that concept a bit further it's not difficult to believe that human morality can exist without the need for any supernatural or religious connection.
All fascinating stuff IMO. Free your mind and the rest will follow, as En Vogue fans will recall. Mind you, they were probably soul sisters and soul is a word that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. It seems to me that possibly consciousness = soul.
There is evidence collectives of living things can control the environment. Someone mentioned ants and in fact I nearly mentioned them in my earlier post. It seems to me that a "nest" of ants, bees or whatever has a sentience that arises somehow from collective existence as opposed to individual existence. If one pushes that concept a bit further it's not difficult to believe that human morality can exist without the need for any supernatural or religious connection.
All fascinating stuff IMO. Free your mind and the rest will follow, as En Vogue fans will recall. Mind you, they were probably soul sisters and soul is a word that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. It seems to me that possibly consciousness = soul.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/how-trees-i...
A concidence that trees have a process that directly brings in more rain?
Trees communicate a lot to each other. If you break down everything in this universe communication seems to be everywhere. I think we need to start looking around us not until space for answers to our existence, probably right under our noses.
Edited by mickythefish on Tuesday 18th June 14:40
mickythefish said:
There is evidence collectives of living things can control the environment.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/how-trees-i...
A concidence that trees have a process that directly brings in more rain?
Transpiration. Nothing mysterious. Water evaporates from leaves, forms into clouds, falls as rain. Part of our planets water cycle. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/how-trees-i...
A concidence that trees have a process that directly brings in more rain?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff