The universe as a sentient being
Discussion
https://docquity.com/articles/universe-and-human-b...
Harmonizing the Cosmos and Consciousness: Profound Parallels Between the Universe and Human Brain
Harmonizing the Cosmos and Consciousness: Profound Parallels Between the Universe and Human Brain
Panamax said:
Super Sonic said:
We don't just look at things with our 'ex monkey eyes', there are forces invisible to us that we study nonetheless.
Like religion.Oh, hang on a minute... I prefer those T-shirts with the message "science is true whether or not you believe in it",
https://www.dot-cotton.co.uk/product/science-is-tr...
mickythefish said:
https://docquity.com/articles/universe-and-human-b...
Harmonizing the Cosmos and Consciousness: Profound Parallels Between the Universe and Human Brain
Is this another 'theory'?Harmonizing the Cosmos and Consciousness: Profound Parallels Between the Universe and Human Brain
Ken_Code said:
mickythefish said:
There is proof that us observing something has an impact on the outcome.
Yes, this is basic quantum mechanics, but it has nothing to do with a human seeing it; the interaction with something that can transfer information is the important part.Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
Unless that's a deliberate joke, it's a big fail to say science is "true" in any useful sense.
Except for the sense that it's useful in technology enabling us to build the artifacts in the world we see around us. Or is your car 'powered by fairy dust'?otolith said:
Ah, well, now. Panpsychism gets rid of dualism and the complexity of explaining how consciousness emerges from unconscious stuff.It has simplicity on its side. But I suspect a lot of people think it's b
ks.ATG said:
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
Unless that's a deliberate joke, it's a big fail to say science is "true" in any useful sense.
Except for the sense that it's useful in technology enabling us to build the artifacts in the world we see around us. Or is your car 'powered by fairy dust'?mickythefish said:
The cell-based theory of consciousness frames the phenomenon a fundamental part of life itself.
How do you think yourself to write that? Are you not a theory yourself?
Good grief. Repeating a phrase you read doesn't make you sound intelligent.How do you think yourself to write that? Are you not a theory yourself?
Then calling me a theory? You may want to read the link I posted for you.
mickythefish said:
The cell-based theory of consciousness frames the phenomenon a fundamental part of life itself.
How do you think yourself to write that? Are you not a theory yourself?
You seem not to understand what scientists use the word “theory” before, and are using it in a very strange way.How do you think yourself to write that? Are you not a theory yourself?
It’s really worth trying to learn at least the basics of what science is before jumping in trying to overthrow everything.
otolith said:
ATG said:
Ah, well, now. Panpsychism gets rid of dualism and the complexity of explaining how consciousness emerges from unconscious stuff.
It has simplicity on its side. But I suspect a lot of people think it's bks.
It's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. It has simplicity on its side. But I suspect a lot of people think it's b
ks.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.
A key problem with consciousness is that it is a bit like the idea of God. People seem to instinctively know what it is but if you ask them to define it they can’t. 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.
Before we can decide whether other animals or even plants are conscious we need a clear definition with justification for the criteria used. I don’t think we have such an agreed definition. I think a main part of the problem is that we don’t understand the processes that lead to what we call consciousness.
Panamax said:
As regards "true", if you don't think science is true - what do you think is true?
How about mathematics? Invented or discovered? The answer appears to be "discovered", which is odd, but there we go.
Frankly I remain mystified by the concept of TT (Pi) let alone anything else.
Logical statements are true or false. E.g. this sort of silliness:How about mathematics? Invented or discovered? The answer appears to be "discovered", which is odd, but there we go.
Frankly I remain mystified by the concept of TT (Pi) let alone anything else.
A cat is an animal. I have a pet cat. Logical statement: therefore pets are cats. False because I also have a pet rock.
Science is a method for finding repeating patterns in observations. You can't say a method of doing something is true or false.
I'd say mathematics is invented. Once you've set yourself a set of rules you might then discover things that those rules imply, so mathematics involves "discovery", but only in the sense that your might discover a new opening strategy for a chess game. Chess itself is an invention. Or you could say that games are an invention and when exploring all possible games, I discovered chess. Point is I believe the existence of mathematics is a different sort of existence from that of the physical world. Platonists might think the two types of existence are closer. Some people think that the physical world is literally doing sums to figure out how it is going to behave.
Edited by ATG on Tuesday 18th June 17:20
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
Unless that's a deliberate joke, it's a big fail to say science is "true" in any useful sense.
Except for the sense that it's useful in technology enabling us to build the artifacts in the world we see around us. Or is your car 'powered by fairy dust'?ATG said:
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
Unless that's a deliberate joke, it's a big fail to say science is "true" in any useful sense.
Except for the sense that it's useful in technology enabling us to build the artifacts in the world we see around us. Or is your car 'powered by fairy dust'?I made the point that science is 'useful in technology...
You quoted it but apparently didn't read it. Try reading it again, then rather than trying to avoid it by talking b
ks, try replying.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff