The universe as a sentient being
Discussion
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.
How does life cone from nothing? How does a consciousness cone from nothing unless all animals have some form of it .
You look at the past forget religion and the people in more touch with nature. Where they all wrong?
"Synchronicity is what happens when seemingly unrelated events coincide in improbable ways that have some sort of significance for you. Jung believed synchronicities were evidence of a unifying consciousness at play in the universe, creating physical manifestations of what's happening in our psyche."
An example I've had summited Ben Nevis , heavy winds couldn't see a thing. Sat down literally 3 minutes later all cleared sun came out. At the same time a song by Keane came on that fitted the mood exactly.
Also I was going to meet someone off the internet for a walk. Drove there ,suddenly snow storms,they couldn't make it. Realised later they were a psychopath. Was that just a concidence or the universe working in ways to guide her on a path?
Yes it all becomes very unscientific and understand why people don't like it, but I think maybe science doesn't have all the answers. I do believe that our ability to see the universe is a key to something else and we should look inwards to find the answers .
You look at the past forget religion and the people in more touch with nature. Where they all wrong?
"Synchronicity is what happens when seemingly unrelated events coincide in improbable ways that have some sort of significance for you. Jung believed synchronicities were evidence of a unifying consciousness at play in the universe, creating physical manifestations of what's happening in our psyche."
An example I've had summited Ben Nevis , heavy winds couldn't see a thing. Sat down literally 3 minutes later all cleared sun came out. At the same time a song by Keane came on that fitted the mood exactly.
Also I was going to meet someone off the internet for a walk. Drove there ,suddenly snow storms,they couldn't make it. Realised later they were a psychopath. Was that just a concidence or the universe working in ways to guide her on a path?
Yes it all becomes very unscientific and understand why people don't like it, but I think maybe science doesn't have all the answers. I do believe that our ability to see the universe is a key to something else and we should look inwards to find the answers .
mickythefish said:
How does life cone from nothing? How does a consciousness cone from nothing unless all animals have some form of it .
You look at the past forget religion and the people in more touch with nature. Where they all wrong?
"Synchronicity is what happens when seemingly unrelated events coincide in improbable ways that have some sort of significance for you. Jung believed synchronicities were evidence of a unifying consciousness at play in the universe, creating physical manifestations of what's happening in our psyche."
An example I've had summited Ben Nevis , heavy winds couldn't see a thing. Sat down literally 3 minutes later all cleared sun came out. At the same time a song by Keane came on that fitted the mood exactly.
Also I was going to meet someone off the internet for a walk. Drove there ,suddenly snow storms,they couldn't make it. Realised later they were a psychopath. Was that just a concidence or the universe working in ways to guide her on a path?
Yes it all becomes very unscientific and understand why people don't like it, but I think maybe science doesn't have all the answers. I do believe that our ability to see the universe is a key to something else and we should look inwards to find the answers .
Well, let’s start with you do you - if you’re minded to think there’s some bigger plan, guiding hand, or whatever at work and that works for you, then that’s pretty great. You look at the past forget religion and the people in more touch with nature. Where they all wrong?
"Synchronicity is what happens when seemingly unrelated events coincide in improbable ways that have some sort of significance for you. Jung believed synchronicities were evidence of a unifying consciousness at play in the universe, creating physical manifestations of what's happening in our psyche."
An example I've had summited Ben Nevis , heavy winds couldn't see a thing. Sat down literally 3 minutes later all cleared sun came out. At the same time a song by Keane came on that fitted the mood exactly.
Also I was going to meet someone off the internet for a walk. Drove there ,suddenly snow storms,they couldn't make it. Realised later they were a psychopath. Was that just a concidence or the universe working in ways to guide her on a path?
Yes it all becomes very unscientific and understand why people don't like it, but I think maybe science doesn't have all the answers. I do believe that our ability to see the universe is a key to something else and we should look inwards to find the answers .
However, yes - coincidences happen, and quite often. You’re remembering when music suited the mood, right when something else happened, for example. You don’t remember the hundreds of times a day that doesn’t happen though.
You’re correct to say that science doesn’t have all the answers. The rational / scientific answer to that is to say that we don’t know why “X” happens yet, but we might work it out in time. There’s no need to fill in the blanks with some overarching unseen power though. Don’t know is an acceptable answer.
You have given two coincidences as evidence of 'synchronicity'. You believe that is evidence that the universe is sentient?
Life emerging from non living things.
"Emergence - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
As pointed out by DanL above, science doesn't know all the answers, but it tries to find out about the things it doesn't know rather than ascribe them to mysterious forces.
Life emerging from non living things.
"Emergence - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
As pointed out by DanL above, science doesn't know all the answers, but it tries to find out about the things it doesn't know rather than ascribe them to mysterious forces.
Edited by Super Sonic on Wednesday 19th June 10:39
I remember being taught there were seven colours that made up the colours of a rainbow. Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.
Yeah right, Sir Isaac Newton, who described it, just liked the number seven so just added indigo and violet after the end of the generally perceived five colours and magically hit his lucky number. In reality humans can distinguish about a million different colours.
Similarly I feel stuff like consciousness isn't "on" or "off", it's grey-scale. As mentioned earlier, this leads inevitably to the likelihood that some humans are more "conscious" than others.
Yeah right, Sir Isaac Newton, who described it, just liked the number seven so just added indigo and violet after the end of the generally perceived five colours and magically hit his lucky number. In reality humans can distinguish about a million different colours.
Similarly I feel stuff like consciousness isn't "on" or "off", it's grey-scale. As mentioned earlier, this leads inevitably to the likelihood that some humans are more "conscious" than others.
Super Sonic said:
Comprehension fail.
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.
What you posted had nothing to do with what I had previously said, hence you hadn't made a point about anything I was talking about. "Usefulness" has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. You say your weren't taking about the word "truth" while replying to a post in which I was talking about the meaning of that word. Science is not true or false in the same way it isn't red or green.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.ATG said:
Super Sonic said:
Comprehension fail.
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 bks, try replying.
What you posted had nothing to do with what I had previously said, hence you hadn't made a point about anything I was talking about. "Usefulness" has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. You say your weren't taking about the word "truth" while replying to a post in which I was talking about the meaning of that word. Science is not true or false in the same way it isn't red or green.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.ATG said:
[Unless that's a deliberate joke, it's a big fail to say science is "true" IN ANY USEFUL SENSE.]
I replied
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'?
In other words, science is "true in the sense that it's useful" which is exactly what you were talking about.
Again, do you want to address my point, or are you just going to spout more bs.
Skeptisk said:
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.
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.
Some would say that what they mean by consciousness is more fundamental than a behaviour that arises from a process.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.
That might seem a little odd to those of us who have been brought up with a very mechanistic view of the nature of things, but it can't just be dismissed. Serious people who by any normal standard have a pretty solid grounding in science, e.g. Roger Nobel-Prize-in-Physics Penrose, consider it implausible that our minds are things that can be replicated in classical computers even in theory. A lot of thinkers consider it axiomatic that we have free will and consciousness ... i.e. those are fundamental attributes of us. My starting point is very different. I'm comfortable with the idea that my consciousness and sense of free will are just the behaviour of a chunk of matter and that a simulation of that matter in a computer would be just as authentically conscious and capable of exercising free will as me. To a lot of perfectly sensible people, my position seems bizarre and deeply unsatisfactory.
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
Super Sonic said:
Comprehension fail.
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 bks, try replying.
What you posted had nothing to do with what I had previously said, hence you hadn't made a point about anything I was talking about. "Usefulness" has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. You say your weren't taking about the word "truth" while replying to a post in which I was talking about the meaning of that word. Science is not true or false in the same way it isn't red or green.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.ATG said:
[Unless that's a deliberate joke, it's a big fail to say science is "true" IN ANY USEFUL SENSE.]
I replied
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'?
In other words, science is "true in the sense that it's useful" which is exactly what you were talking about.
Again, do you want to address my point, or are you just going to spout more bs.
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
Utility and truth are completely different things. There is no sense in which anything's utility makes that thing either true or false.
So "True in any useful sense" is meaningless?That's what I meant when I said "it's a fail to say science is true in any useful sense". I was commenting on a slogan that said "science is true". In that context I think it is pretty obvious what I was saying.
ATG said:
I don't think it's useful to try to say "science is true".
That's what I meant when I said "it's a fail to say science is true in any useful sense". I was commenting on a slogan that said "science is true". In that context I think it is pretty obvious what I was saying.
And yet you take the slogan "Science is true wether you believe it or not" out of context when it's pretty obvious to most people what Panamax meant.That's what I meant when I said "it's a fail to say science is true in any useful sense". I was commenting on a slogan that said "science is true". In that context I think it is pretty obvious what I was saying.
'True' can be used as a synonym for 'Accurate' or 'Exact'. In this sense, Science is true.
Edited by Super Sonic on Wednesday 19th June 23:35
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
I don't think it's useful to try to say "science is true".
That's what I meant when I said "it's a fail to say science is true in any useful sense". I was commenting on a slogan that said "science is true". In that context I think it is pretty obvious what I was saying.
And yet you take the slogan "Science is true wether you believe it or not" out of context when it's pretty obvious to most people what Panamax meant.That's what I meant when I said "it's a fail to say science is true in any useful sense". I was commenting on a slogan that said "science is true". In that context I think it is pretty obvious what I was saying.
'True' can be used as a synonym for 'Accurate' or 'Exact'. In this sense, Science is true.
Edited by Super Sonic on Wednesday 19th June 23:35
ATG said:
When you use the word truth in the context of belief you don't mean "accurate" or "exact", so with all due respect it isn't me who's interrupting words out of context.
It was a slogan from a t-shirt.There is a context in which the slogan makes sense.
You are assuming a different context from the one in which it makes sense, and using that context to assert it doesn't make sense. That's a strawman.
If a statement is made, and it makes sense in a certain context, it is reasonable to assume it was meant in that context.
ATG said:
To a lot of perfectly sensible people, my position seems bizarre and deeply unsatisfactory.
It’s not a comforting thought. I loved The Life of Pi, but I disliked the central conceit that a comforting lie is better than an unpleasant truth. I think consciousness is an emergent property of matter arranged in certain complex systems and that death is like shutting down a computer. There’s no ghost in the machine. Others find that uncomfortably meaningless and nihilistic and want to believe that there’s more to it. It doesn’t really matter either way, but people will kill over their interpretation. otolith said:
It’s not a comforting thought. I loved The Life of Pi, but I disliked the central conceit that a comforting lie is better than an unpleasant truth. I think consciousness is an emergent property of matter arranged in certain complex systems and that death is like shutting down a computer. There’s no ghost in the machine. Others find that uncomfortably meaningless and nihilistic and want to believe that there’s more to it. It doesn’t really matter either way, but people will kill over their interpretation.
I think one reason people don't like this may be because it is apparently deterministic, which would seem to imply free will is an illusion. (It doesn't)Great thread really enjoy reading posts surprised it is still going as must think I'm nuts, but I do think there is a blurred line where science meets philosophy.
I mean the big bang had the combined big forces that broke up, maybe there are ones we have missed. Also life came from nothing but maybe nothing always had life?This is where I think we are constrained by how we think as evolved monkeys.
And just to be clear I do not believe in a god , because then that becomes good and bad which are meaningless in a universe. Death is a cycle of life.
I mean the big bang had the combined big forces that broke up, maybe there are ones we have missed. Also life came from nothing but maybe nothing always had life?This is where I think we are constrained by how we think as evolved monkeys.
And just to be clear I do not believe in a god , because then that becomes good and bad which are meaningless in a universe. Death is a cycle of life.
Edited by mickythefish on Thursday 20th June 07:01
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
When you use the word truth in the context of belief you don't mean "accurate" or "exact", so with all due respect it isn't me who's interrupting words out of context.
It was a slogan from a t-shirt.There is a context in which the slogan makes sense.
You are assuming a different context from the one in which it makes sense, and using that context to assert it doesn't make sense. That's a strawman.
If a statement is made, and it makes sense in a certain context, it is reasonable to assume it was meant in that context.
That T-shirt's slogan is lazy, confrontational b
ks that is philosophically meaningless. It's about atheism versus religionists. It isn't saying anything useful or indeed true about science. It's making claims about science that scientists with any grasp of the philosophy of science would not make. And just in case you think this is some sort of tribal thing, I'm an atheist with a degree and on-going considerable interest in Physics. I'm also interested in and largely ignorant about philosophy.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?
I think I read something the other day that said up until now, they thought that consciousness was in the brain, but they now believe that every cell in your body could have some sort of consciousness.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?
mickythefish said:
Great thread really enjoy reading posts surprised it is still going as must think I'm nuts, but I do think there is a blurred line where science meets philosophy.
There definitely is a blurred line between science and philosophy. People think of science as entirely cold and clinical and logical, but often a couple of things get confused:Edited by mickythefish on Thursday 20th June 07:01
- just because you’re using a scientific approach (i.e. the methods and rigour and deductive reasoning of science) doesnt mean you are doing science. A good example is engineering, but even much research in what we all agree are sciences (chemistry, biology, phsyics) is often just applying known facts in a scientific way to achieve a desired end (i.e. basically engineering). The scientific approach is not (alone) science. Instead, science is a tool we use to learn about the world around us. If you’re not exploring, even if you are using the scientific method, you are not doing science.
- onto that cold and clinical and purely deductive approach thing. True science - where you are exploring the world to try to learn something knew by organising new knowledge - needs genuine and deep creativity. That’s where the philosophy comes in - quite often, to make progress, you need to be able to imagine a self-consistent model or theory from incomplete data, rather than getting all the data and organising it. Philosophy and its approaches are very useful here.
Philosophy is not science, but i have never met a good scientist who is unphilosophical.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff